Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (GUILD CHURCHES) BILL

To be considered upon Tuesday, 26th April.

LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ETC.) BILL (By Order)

NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday, 26th April.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS OF LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 26th April.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND REGISTRY (BRANCH OFFICES)

Mr. Grey: asked the Attorney-General the places at which Land Registry regional offices have been opened; the number of staff involved; and to what extent staff requirements were met by other Government Departments being invited to supply volunteers to take the place of those not wishing to leave London.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): Branch offices of Her Majesty's Land Registry have been opened at Tunbridge Wells, Lytham St. Annes and Nottingham; the number of staff employed in these offices is 311, 278 and 81 respectively. Applications for transfer to the Land Registry in London and to the branch offices have been invited from staff of other Departments, and a number of applications are being considered.

Mr. Grey: May I ask the Attorney-General whether he is aware that the original intention was to have the whole of the Land Registry Department in Durham? Will he explain why that was not carried into effect? Even though there has been some change of policy, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman please state the reason why one regional office was not established in Durham?

The Attorney-General: My right hon. Friend the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury announced on 15th July, 1954, that the Land Registry was not to be moved to Durham.

Mr. Grey: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the reason why?

Oral Answers to Questions — ACTIONS FOR BREACH OF PROMISE

Mr. Lipton: asked the Attorney-General if he will introduce legislation to abolish actions for breach of promise.

The Attorney-General: No.

Mr. Lipton: While I am not surprised at the Attorney-General's rather stick-in-the-mud attitude, may I ask him if he will please bear in mind that this kind of action is sordid, stupid and not in line with modern ideas of sex equality? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that most people want to see it abolished, and the sooner the better?

The Attorney-General: I am not aware of any general demand for the abolition of this cause of action. The hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite in error if he thinks that a man cannot sue for breach of promise.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider that his Answer is quite consistent with the policy of the Government and the party opposite who throughout the ages have based their whole fortune on breach of promise?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Premises, Bridge Street (Acquisition)

Mr. C. Pannell: asked the Minister of Works whether, in view of the delays which will be involved in acquiring premises in the Bridge Street area


for the future use of this House through the medium of the planning powers of the London County Council, he will proceed instead by special Act of Parliament.

The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope): While my present view is that little or no time would be saved by special legislation, I would be prepared to consider it later if it appears advantageous.

Mr. Pannell: Would the hon. Gentleman, when he thinks again about this matter, bear in mind the history of such legislation? I believe that until the London County Council was in being, this Parliament always proceeded by special Act in order to increase its precincts. The hon. Gentleman may remember that Parliament Square was altered by special Act in 1949. I am advised that the deliberations in the London County Council might well take up to three years. Above all, will the hon. Gentleman think about the dignity of this House? Generally speaking, this House should plan the precincts around it and not necessarily leave that matter to a special committee of a local authority?

Lord John Hope: Of course, all these factors will be taken into account, but whichever way we do it there must inevitably be a lot of other people to be considered. Whatever we do, it will take time.

Mrs. Castle: Will the hon. Gentleman bring this suggestion before the ad hoc Committee which, I understand, the Government have agreed to set up to pilot through this new development in our accommodation so that the Committee can decide which procedure it thinks would be advantageous to the interests of the House?

Lord John Hope: That is rather a quick one. I will certainly think it over. I doubt whether it will be right to put this point to that Committee.

House of Commons (Accommodation)

Mr. C. Pannell: asked the Minister of Works whether he will have plans and models prepared setting out his ultimate objectives for the future development of buildings for the use of Members of this House.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Works whether he will place in the Library copies of his plans for making additional secretarial accommodation available under the roof of the Palace of Westminster.

Lord John Hope: I hope to exhibit a model, plans and other particulars of the scheme for providing additional accommodation in the roof space over the Committee Rooms after the Easter recess. In due course, I will also provide information about long-term proposals for providing additional accommodation for hon. Members, but I cannot yet say when I shall be in a position to do this.

Mr. Pannell: While I thank the Minister for that Answer, may I ask him how, after having exhibited the plans or drawings, he proposes to take the sense of the House on this matter? Are we to set up a committee within the House itself to advise the Minister, or does the right hon. Gentleman think that, after all, the Commissioners as envisaged by the Stokes Committee would have been the best means for us to adopt?

Lord John Hope: I think the answer to the hon. Gentleman lies in the undertaking which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave during the debate, to discuss with Mr. Speaker and through the usual channels the best method of enabling the House to express its view. This committee will be set up, and I think it will be the one to consider the matter.

Mrs. Castle: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with his right hon. Friend to ensure that the committee is set up immediately after the Easter Recess.

Lord John Hope: I am sure that note will be taken of the hon. Lady's words.

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Works what steps he is taking to provide additional accommodation for the research department of the House of Commons Library.

Lord John Hope: I have received no requests from the authorities of the House to provide additional accommodation for this department.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister satisfied that two rooms and a typist's table are sufficient to meet the research needs of 630 Members of Parliament?

Lord John Hope: The hon. Gentleman should put his point to the authorities of the House.

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Presumably the Table passed my hon. Friend's Question, and if the Table passes a Question it is assumed that the Minister takes responsibility for it. The right hon. Gentleman answered the Question, but he can hardly run off on a supplementary question with the idea that, although the original Question was properly asked, the supplementary question was not one for him. During the debate referred to the right hon. Gentleman opened on this subject.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister may be right or wrong, but I do not think his error is a point of order for me.

Lord John Hope: I hope I am right, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Works when he expects to be able to provide a filing cabinet for each Member supplied with a desk.

Lord John Hope: I supply filing cabinets at the request of the authorities of the House, who are responsible for their allocation. Twenty cabinets were provided last month and a further fifty are now on order for delivery in about six weeks' time.

Mr. Hayman: Who is the authority in this respect to whom an hon. Member can apply?

Lord John Hope: The hon. Gentleman would find that his best method would be to apply to the Serjeant at Arms, who acts for Mr. Speaker in these matters.

Mrs. Castle: But the Serjeant at Arms and the Deputy Serjeant at Arms do not answer Questions in the House. Is it not a fact that the Minister is able to take refuge behind this fact when he has failed to meet the needs of hon. Members? Ought we not to alter the system, as we proposed in the recent debate, and instead have a House of Commons Commission, the vice-chairman of which could answer such Questions as these in the House?

Lord John Hope: I do not think it necessarily follows that that is the best method. There are ways of getting these points aired. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) has

found an admirable way of doing it, and other hon. Members can use the same method.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Does my right hon. Friend realise that I at any rate do not want either a desk or a filing cabinet? Is he aware that this attempt to increase the accommodation for hon. Members is nothing more than a ramp on the part of the Left wing to inflate its importance at the public expense?

Lord John Hope: No, Sir; I regret that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend's opinion, but there is no need at all for him to have anything that he does not want.

Mrs. Slater: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that one of the fifty filing cabinets is sent to the women's room so that we can at least keep our filing up to date, if not our education?

Lord John Hope: I rather thought that there was ample filing accommodation in the Ladies' Room already from what I have heard.

Commons Chamber and Committee Rooms (Acoustics)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Works when he last reviewed the problem of acoustics in the Chamber and Upstairs Committee Rooms of the House of Commons; and if he will make a statement.

Lord John Hope: Reviews have just been completed of the acoustics in the House of Commons Chamber and in Committee Room No. 14. I am satisfied that in the Chamber the amplification system works well.

Hon. Members: No.

Lord John Hope: Hon. Members have heard perfectly well what I said or they would not have made that interruption.
I recognise that there is difficulty in hearing speeches in Committee Room No. 14, and I am considering the possibility of improving matters here. My attention has not been drawn to any difficulties in other Committee Rooms.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is not the real trouble mumbling Ministers?

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister aware that from the bench where I sit it is impossible to hear my hon. Friends the


Members for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)? [An HON. MEMBER: "YOU are lucky."] In view of the technical advances in reproduction which permit one to have high fidelity in the home, is it too much to ask that we should at least have good reproduction in the House? Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the medical profession about the effect on the health of hon. Members through the appalling posture which they have to adopt, with one ear by the amplifier in the bench behind them and one eye on the hon. Member who is speaking? While we welcome the news that the Minister is taking the opportunity to look at conditions in Committee Room 14, will he also have a look at Committee Rooms 10 and 11, where some hon. Members have difficulty in hearing the proceedings in Standing Committee?

Lord John Hope: I will certainly consider the difficulties in the other Committee Rooms to which the hon. Member refers. With regard to this Chamber, I do not, seriously, believe that any hon. Member really thinks that if hon. Members spoke up they would not be heard everywhere.

Mr. Hale: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the advantage of not being able to hear speeches is one of which some of us would not willingly be deprived? Will he tell us who are the Officers of the House to whom he must refer questions relating to acoustics or Library accommodation, where they are to be found, and what he is paid for?

Lord John Hope: I do not want to waste the time of the House. The hon. Gentleman will find that question amply dealt with by myself and others during the debate on accommodation.

Captain Pilkington: With regard to the Committee Rooms upstairs, is it not a fact that the Press has very little difficulty in hearing what goes on?

George Washington (Statue)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Works if he will consider removing the statue of George Washington from its site near the National Gallery to a site nearer Westminster.

Lord John Hope: No, Sir.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that American visitors to this country do not understand why George Washington, the man who never told a lie, is kept so far from Westminster, and would he consider removing the statue nearer Downing Street or the Foreign Office so that their inhabitants might get inspiration at moments of difficulty?

Lord John Hope: I think that on the whole it is probably better to leave Washington where he is. He is only a little way down the road from George III, who has, in fact, turned his back on him.

Lifts, House of Commons (Fire Hazards)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Works what provision is made to deal with fire hazards in the lifts of the House of Commons.

Lord John Hope: In general the lifts and the lift shafts are constructed of fire-resisting or non-combustible material and I am advised that the fire hazards are negligible.

Mr. Hayman: Does that apply to the older lifts as well as the newer lifts? Will the right hon. Gentleman at the same time take into account that smoking in the lifts, although it may not be a fire hazard, makes it very uncomfortable for some hon. Members who have respiratory complaints?

Lord John Hope: I am sure the House will have listened to the last point made by the hon. Member, which is perhaps not quite one for me. With regard to the condition of some of the older lifts, it is true that one or two of them contain some timber, but even these have a two-hour fire resistance. It would certainly, I think, be desirable to get them all up to the highest standard.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Cancer Research

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made in the field of cancer research; and to what extent his Department is assisting this work.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): Research is, of course, proceeding in many parts of the world, and findings are published in the professional journals. Primary concern in Scotland, as elsewhere in Great Britain, rests with the Medical Research Council under the auspices of my noble Friend the Minister for Science. Much useful research work is, however, also done in the ordinary course of hospital services financed by my Department, or with support from the Scottish Hospital Endowments Research Trust.

Mr. Dempsey: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House if the results of cancer research in America are made known to his Department? Is he aware that there is very considerable disquiet in Scotland about the degree of charity upon which cancer research depends? Does he not think that it is time he took personal responsibility for helping to find a cure for this dreadful malignancy?

Mr. Maclay: The findings of all research work published in professional journals are carefully studied by the responsible officers of my Department. I can assure the hon. Member that no worth-while research project in Scotland need be frustrated by lack of funds, which can be made available from a number of sources.

Air-Raid Shelters

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of air-raid shelters still standing in Scotland, with particular regard to the City of Aberdeen; if he is aware that many of them are insanitary, are eyesores, occupy ground needed for drying greens and playgrounds and block out natural light; and if he will state Government policy relating to them, and take steps to have them removed.

Mr. Maclay: Approximately 14,300 shelters are still in existence in Scotland, including about 2,750 in the City of Aberdeen for which the Corporation is responsible.
It is the policy of the Government that sound air raid shelters should be preserved as far as possible. I am, however, always prepared to consider whether in individual cases there are compelling grounds for authorising removal.

Mr. Hughes: As a general principle, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in this nuclear age these contraptions are no longer shelters but, on the contrary, are dangerous because they harbour hostile germs which are a danger to the population? Will he take steps to have removed those that are left, for the reasons indicated in my Question?

Mr. Maclay: No, Sir. I could not agree with the first point in that supplementary question. Some shelter is better than none. Outside a devastated area these shelters could give useful protection against radioactive fall-out.

Her Majesty's Prisons

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken during the last 10 years to survey the structural and topographical suitabilities for their present purposes of Her Majesty's prisons in Scotland; and if he will now make a detailed report on them, indicating Government policy with regard to them.

Mr. Maclay: The facilities available for the detention of offenders are kept under constant review, and an intensive scheme of modernisation and expansion to meet present day requirements is in progress. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a note of the changes made and in contemplation.

Mr. Hughes: Again as a matter of principle, does the Secretary of State agree that these old-fashioned prisons make it very difficult for the governors, warders and prison reformers to carry out the ideals of the present age, and that these prisons are so out of date that they should be quickly changed into modern buildings?

Mr. Maclay: I am always wary about answering a supplementary question covering wide general principles. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will study the details which I am circulating he will realise that progress is being made.

Following is the note:

CHANGES IN PRISON AND BORSTAL ACCOMMODATION SINCE 1950

New open prison (Penninghame) opened, and subsequently extended.
Disused hall (Perth) renovated and reopened.
Disused hall (Peterhead) in course of renovation.


Senior detention centre (Perth) to be opened this summer.
New open Borstal Institution (Longriggend) to be opened this summer.
Junior detention centre (Perth) to be opened next year.
New Training House (Polmont) under construction.
New remand centre and new prison for untried adult prisoners near Glasgow being planned.
One prison (Duke Street) closed.
A new Borstal Institution and further Detention Centres under consideration.
At all establishments the existing buildings have been improved and additional buildings erected for worksheds, class-rooms, cookhouses, bath-houses, hospital blocks, dining halls, recreation rooms, etc.

Students (Post-Graduate Studies)

Dr. A. Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will extend the range of awards available to Scottish students wishing to undertake post-graduate study or other forms of further training in England and abroad.

Mr. Maclay: I intend to review this matter in the light of the Report of the Committee on Grants to Students, which is expected shortly.

Dr. Thompson: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, but may I ask whether he will bear in mind two very serious weaknesses of the present system of post-graduate awards which enable Scottish students to study in England or abroad? First, there are many subjects in which no awards are given. It is easy to get an award to study classics outside Scotland but very difficult—almost impossible—to get an award for medicine, science, technology or economics. The second weakness is that a student requires a first-class honours degree or a very good second in order to qualify for a post-graduate award to study in England or abroad. This excludes many people who would benefit from post-graduate work of a slightly less academic type, such as social work or teacher training.

Mr. Maclay: I will carefully note what the hon. Member has said, but I think he will agree that we should await the Report of the Committee on Grants to Students to which I have referred.

Crime Investigation (Regional Co-operation)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consult with the Scottish chief constables, with a view to introducing legislation to establish a regional crime squad, to be made available to police forces throughout Scotland.

Mr. Maclay: I understand that Glasgow and certain neighbouring forces are considering the establishment of a small squad to operate throughout their areas, and I very much welcome this example of co-operation between police forces which does not require legislation. Consideration of the possible extension of local arrangements on these lines is a matter for the chief constables concerned.

Mr. Dempsey: Would the right hon. Gentleman state that any further extension would probably have his co-operation, because the object of the extension would be to recruit the best professional skill that we have in Scotland for the purpose of criminal detection?

Mr. Maclay: Certainly, when we have some experience of this scheme study would be given to the possibilities of extension.

Mr. Hannan: The right hon. Gentleman's Department set up a central criminal register for Scotland which seemed to go part of the way towards the establishment of this department, for which some of us have been asking for some time. Could not the right hon. Gentleman go further and not leave it to his chief constables but himself take action in this matter and make this force available to any part of Scotland?

Mr. Maclay: That is another question. I remind the House that the basis of British policing is local organisation. The larger forces are always ready to assist the smaller, and I do not think that a change of the kind the hon. Member is suggesting is very desirable. It would require a very great deal of thought.

Mr. T. Fraser: Will the proposal to set up a central C.I.D. for Scotland be within the purview of the Royal Commission?

Mr. Maclay: I should like notice of that supplementary question.

State Management Districts (Licences)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now review his previous policy and approve the granting of licences by licensing magistrates in areas where hitherto he has permitted only State public houses to exist.

Mr. Maclay: No, Sir. The considerations before the licensing court in dealing with an application for a certificate and before me in considering an application under Section 82 (1) (b) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1959, are not identical.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is it not quite fantastic that a member of the present Government should ask this House on repeated occasions to re-enact this Socialist Measure against the wishes of both the licensing magistrates and the local authority?

Mr. Maclay: I think my hon. Friend is raising the whole question of the future of State management districts, which is not one I can deal with properly in question and answer.

Mr. W. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that State beer is cheaper than private enterprise beer?

Land Drainage (Improvement Orders)

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications he has received for Improvement Orders, and how many he has made, arising from the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act, 1958.

Mr. Maclay: Ninety-six applications for improvement orders have been received. Of these twenty-eight have been withdrawn by the applicants. One order has been made and the remaining sixty-seven applications are at various stages of consideration.

Mr. Manuel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Act is quite inadequate to meet many of the flooding and drainage problems throughout Scotland? It applies only to agricultural land and excludes the prevention of flooding where other subjects are involved, such as factories or residential property. Could he give any hope that

he will take the bit in his teeth and bring forward some legislation so that we can attempt to remove many of the flood problems?

Mr. Maclay: It is too early to pass judgment on the operation of the Act. The other matters raised by the hon. Member go far outside this question. I am considering the possibility of legislation to deal with some parts of the problem.

New Towns (Status)

Mrs. Hart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider amending the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, to provide for the granting of large burgh status to new towns on their attaining a population of 30,000 without the necessity of their promoting a provisional order.

Mr. Maclay: No, Sir. I think that the amendment the hon. Lady has in mind would have to be to the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947. I would point out that the Jeffrey Committee, whose Report was the basis of that Act, took the view that questions arising in regard to the formation of a large burgh are so complicated and so important that the matter can be dealt with satisfactorily only by special legislation.

Mrs. Hart: Would not the Secretary of State agree that there is a strong case for treating new towns, which have arisen as a result of deliberate action by the Government, in a rather different way from existing communities which seek to change the nature of their existing burgh status? Would he not also agree that the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, does make it possible for a new town to achieve large burgh status but only by rather elaborate machinery involving considerable cost? Will he look further into this matter from the point of view of the new towns in Scotland, which are so dissatisfied with their existing local government structure?

Mr. Maclay: I am not entirely certain about the validity of the hon. Lady's remark that the new towns are all dissatisfied with the position. I would require further information about that. I have considered this general question and I do not think that questions which would arise in the case of a new town would be


any less complicated or less important than in the case of a small burgh or other populous place. I would be reluctant to go beyond the recommendations of the Jeffrey Commission on this matter.

Mrs. Hart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Prisoners, Peterhead (Public Works)

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, since the work upon Peterhead Harbour, which has provided employment for 70 years, is now completed, to what extent he has considered using good conduct prisoners from Peterhead for other public works, including urgently needed repairs to harbours of refuge at Stonehaven and Gourdon in Kincardineshire and to the docks at Montrose.

Mr. Maclay: At present prisoners at Peterhead are fully employed inside the prison, and for security reasons it would not be practicable to employ them on works outside the immediate vicinity of Peterhead.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Has my right hon. Friend had his attention called to a speech made in Glasgow by the Governor of Barlinnie Prison recently, in which he is reported to have said that many young men entering prison had never been in work since they left school? Would it not be a good thing to help them to find employment later on— which is the second point made by the Governor—if they could be given useful work while serving their term of imprisonment?

Mr. Maclay: I have not had that article drawn to my attention, but I have noted what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. T. Fraser: I hope that the Secretary of State has noted that his hon. Friend thinks that the only way to get a job in Scotland is to go to prison.

Forestry

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the greater amount of forest planting in Scotland compared to the rest of Great

Britain, he will encourage the Forestry Commission to set up a research station in Scotland.

Mr. Maclay: The Commission has a research sub-station in Edinburgh at present, which investigates forestry problems peculiar to Scotland and also taxes part in researches common to Great Britain. So far as I can judge, the existing Scottish needs are adequately catered for by these arrangements.

Fire, Glasgow (Relief Fund)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an assurance that he will not refuse permission to any local authority wishing to make a contribution to the Lord Provost of Glasgow's Relief Fund for the dependants of the firemen who lost their lives in the recent disaster.

Mr. Maclay: I have great sympathy with the thought behind the hon. Member's Question but he will appreciate that, being bound in relation to rate-borne contributions by the terms of Section 339 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, it is not possible for me to give the assurance for which he asks. I am advised that the terms of Section 339 will allow me to approve contributions only if people living in the area of the authority concerned are going to be helped by the fund. I should add that, as I stated on 22nd February, I am in consultation with the local authority associations about the possibility of amending Section 339.

Mr. Hannan: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that that Answer will be taken as being miserable and mean and frustrating to many people in Scotland who want their local authorities to be associated with such a fund? The right hon. Gentleman has had time to move in this matter since the Auchengeich disaster. If it is his intention to introduce legislation, when will he do so? If not, will he allow facilities to a private Member who introduces such a Bill?

Mr. Maclay: I do not accept for one moment that my Answer should be taken as being miserable or mean. It was an Answer stating the statutory position by which I am bound.

Mr. Ross: Then do something about it.

Mr. Maclay: I have already been in consultation with the local authority associations about this matter, which is not something on which one should move without full discussion with the local authorities concerned.

Mr. Woodburn: Has not the time come when the Government should consider setting up a proper national fund? While we welcome all the generous donations which are made, they come in circumstances of spectacular loss, and there are many less spectacular incidents which bring as much hardship as the spectacular ones. Should we not cease to depend on charity and have some national way of dealing with these terrible disasters?

Mr. Maclay: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there are other disasters which do not attract the same emotional response throughout the country, but which produce equally deserving cases for help. The wider question of a national disaster fund is difficult and it is very doubtful whether there would be the response from individuals to a vague general fund which one gets with specific disasters.

Miss Herbison: Can the Secretary of State tell us how soon we can expect a decision from his consultations? Is he not aware that the Auchengeich disaster occurred at the beginning of October and that much ill-feeling was engendered by his decision, and that he has had since then time in which to make decisions and to amend the law?

Mr. Maclay: I have not yet received replies from all the local authority associations concerned, but the hon. Lady will appreciate that the question of what can properly be put upon the rates is not simple, no matter how much one sympathises with the objective which various local authorities have in mind.

Fire Precautions (Enforcement)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied that adequate powers are possessed by his Department, or by local authorities, to enforce proposals made by firemasters for improved fire precautions and protection for life and property in their area; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maclay: I have no general powers to enforce proposals made by firemasters for improved fire precautions and protection. Local authorities and Dean of Guild courts have powers of control over plans of new buildings; and local authorities will have additional powers extending to existing buildings when the new building code comes into force under the Building (Scotland) Act, 1959. In the particular case of factories, further powers will also be available to fire authorities and to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour when the relevant provisions of the Factories Act, 1959. come into operation.

Mr. Hannan: Does not that Answer mean that at the moment there are no powers and have not been powers to see that suggested improvements are undertaken? Will the right hon. Gentleman go a little further and make inquiries of local authorities about who is the responsible official in their areas? Is he not aware that in some places it is the fire-master, in others it is the master of works, and in still others it is the police? Will he look into that aspect of the matter and clear it up?

Mr. Maclay: As the hon. Gentleman obviously realises, the position is complex. The Dean of Guild courts have very clear powers in this respect. I will carefully think over what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Fire-Fighting Equipment, Hawick

Commander Donaldson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the four recent disastrous fires at Hawick, he is satisfied with the standard of fire-fighting equipment of the Burgh; and if he will now consider the appointment of one or two permanent firemen to augment the voluntary force and to advise the mills in respect of their internal fire precaution arrangements.

Mr. Maclay: The question of manpower and equipment for fire fighting in Hawick is primarily a matter for the South-Eastern Fire Area Joint Committee and I am discussing with the Committee the possibility of employing whole-time firemen in the Burgh. I understand that the Committee intends this year to replace some of the fire appliances there with more modern


types which will nearly double the pumping capacity available. Manufacturers in the town have been reminded that the brigade is always available to give advice about fire precautions and I hope that they will take full advantage of this.

Commander Donaldson: I thank my right hon. Friend fox his Answer. I hope that he has well in mind the full import of the anxiety in Hawick resulting from the last four serious fires in mills in that town. Will he ensure, so far as he is able, that the firemaster of the authority to which he has referred will take action as promptly as possible?

Mr. Maclay: I think that my hon. Friend will realise from my Answer that I have this matter very much in mind.

Road Works

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that there is road-making plant lying idle and in Scotland ample labour; and whether he will use these for an attack on major road problems in Scotland.

Mr. Maclay: I am aware that the civil engineering industry in Scotland could do more work on roads and I shall authorise that work as quickly as the necessary funds can be made available.

Mr. Woodburn: Is it not foolish to allow the lack of funds to stand in the way of employing thousands of people who are now unemployed in Lanarkshire where a great road from Edinburgh requires to be put into a proper condition? Is it not the case that much plant and civil engineering machinery is lying idle and rusting? Is it not sensible to put the idle men and machines to work and to see that funds are provided?

Mr. Maclay: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the amount of employment given by modern road making is relatively small in relation to the capital expenditure involved. He will also appreciate that the funds available must be allocated without competing with other demands on national resources.

Mr. Strachey: Will not the right hon. Gentleman regard a through-road between the Forth and Tay Bridges as commanding high priority in any new road programme which he proposes?

Mr. Maclay: There is another Question on the Paper dealing with that.

Milk Records Association (Grant)

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he has withdrawn financial aid from the Scottish Milk Records Association; and whether, in view of the contribution made by milk recording to the efficiency of the dairy industry, he will restore the grant.

Mr. Maclay: The decision, which was taken in 1955, to run down this grant progressively over a period of four years ending March, 1960, was in line with general Government policy that grants of this nature should provide an initial impetus for the activity concerned rather than give it permanent support.
While recognising the importance of milk recording, I could not agree to the restoration of the grant.

Mr. Brewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in England and Northern Ireland grants are made for this purpose? Is he not aware that in the Rhins of Galloway the cost of milk recording has nearly doubled in the last few years, with the result that far fewer farmers are now recording? Will he have another look at the matter?

Mr. Maclay: I cannot add to my reply. My hon. Friend will realise that the termination of this grant was discussed in 1955 and it was as a result of those discussions that it was decided to taper off the grant for four years and enable the Association to adjust itself to the new situation.

Mr. Manuel: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain Scottish counties are among the foremost in the world in their production of dairy produce and milk from tuberculosis-free herds? Surely he is not arguing that in this connection we should have a status lower than that of England or Northern Ireland. Surely we should retain what we have and not throw it away as though it were worth nothing.

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in interpreting my Answer in that way. The Answer does not affect the general record of T.T. production in Scotland.

Bonded Warehouses, Glasgow (Fires)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that recently in fairly close sequence there have been three serious fires in bonded warehouses in Glasgow with consequential loss of life and property; and, in view of these facts, if he will hold an inquiry to see what steps can be taken for the future protection of the public against such outbreaks, and what connection there is between them.

Mr. Maclay: Yes, Sir. I fully appreciate the anxiety that has been caused by the three serious fires in warehouses in Glasgow in the past few weeks. The circumstances in which they occurred are still being investigated by the fire brigade and by the police, and a public inquiry will be held under the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Acts into the deaths that occurred in the course of the third fire. I shall review the position when the investigations and inquiry referred to have been completed.

Mr. Rankin: The public inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman has indicated is not the type that I had in mind. Will he assure us that at the public inquiry which he has suggested there will be a full investigation into the causes of this fire, and any relation between it and the others? Will he also tell us whether methods of prevention, such as insulation, proper fire-fighting applicances, and so on, will be inquired into? Further, as we have the breathalyser for estimating the quantity of alcohol in the human body, will he say whether there is any instrument which will estimate the amount of alcohol vapour in a bonded warehouse?

Mr. Maclay: As I said, the public inquiry to which I referred is under the Fatal Accidents (Inquiry) Scotland Acts, and it will take its course. I cannot dictate the course of that inquiry, and I think that it would be wise to wait for the result of that inquiry, and other inquiries to which I referred, before going into further detail on this matter.

Central Institutions (New Students)

Mr. Mclnnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the total number of new students enrolled at the central institutions in Scotland for the sessions 1957–58 and 1958–59.

Mr. Maclay: As the Answer consists of a table of figures, I shall, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
For the reasons I have explained to the hon. Member in writing the figures supersede those given in my Answers on 11th November, 1957, and 23rd February, 1960, for the respective sessions.

Mr. Mclnnes: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman has taken steps to ensure that in future the correct information is provided?

Mr. Maclay: Yes. We have asked all the institutions concerned to prepare their figures in rather a different way in future.

Following is the Answer:

NEW STUDENTS AT CENTRAL INSTITUTIONS


Category
1957–58
1958–59


Science and technology
…
1,366
1,601


Domestic Science
…
749
742


Commerce
…
326
346


Art and Music
…
387
400


TOTALS
…
2,828
3,089

George Square, Edinburgh (Development)

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland his reasons for not ordering a public inquiry into the proposed development of George Square, Edinburgh.

Mr. Maclay: As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald) on Friday, my reasons have been fully explained in published letters. I am sending copies of these letters to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Stodart: I wish my right hon. Friend would be a little bit more forthcoming. Does he realise that there are misgivings, which are quite pronounced, in Edinburgh, and for a fair distance round about? He has stated that he has taken advice on this matter from his own technical experts. Will he give an assurance that he called in the technical and structural experts who are advising the National Trust in Scotland and other amenity societies, and that he gave the fullest consideration to their views?

Mr. Maclay: If he looks at the letters I think my hon. Friend will realise that I have gone into this matter in great detail. I was, of course, in close consultation with my own technical officers after the meeting that I had with the amenity societies.

Forth Road Bridge (Approach Roads)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that on the approach roads to the Forth Road Bridge, British Standard No. 340 kerbs are the best now available for visibility; and whether, before final decisions are made, tests will be carried through to ensure that those making for greatest visibility and safety are used.

Mr. Maclay: British Standard No. 340 concerns itself with the size, shape, quality, strength and colour of precast concrete kerbs, channel edgings and quadrants, and any type of kerb must comply with it.
As regards tests, I would refer to the reply given to the right hon. Gentleman by my hon. Friend, the Joint Undersecretary of State for Scotland on 5th April.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply was most unsatisfactory? Is he aware that this bridge may be a very great hazard to people driving across it in fog? Is there any sensible reason why we should not have the greatest visibility possible? Is he prepared to look into the manufacture of kerbs personally to see that the best kerbs are provided, that there is the best visibility, and the greatest range of visibility, on this bridge and its approaches?

Mr. Maclay: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of visibility on this bridge. I emphasise that it is open to the highway authorities, to whom we must leave something in this matter, to provide kerbs of the type the right hon. Gentleman has in mind provided, if they decide to do so, the kerbs are in accordance with the specifications in other respects. We must leave some responsibility to the highway authorities in this matter.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that we are to endanger life that can be saved merely to save £54 a mile, which I understand is the extra cost of these visibility kerbs? Is he not prepared to appoint some authority to go into this to ensure that the maximum visibility is provided on this bridge?

Mr. Maclay: As I said in reply to the right hon. Gentleman some time ago. my Department is in constant touch with the Road Research Laboratory of the D.S.I.R., and I am sure that the most modern advances will be taken advantage of by the highway authorities.

Traffic, Edinburgh

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Edinburgh Corporation regarding a grant from his Department for the purpose of carrying out a survey of the origin and destination of traffic approaching the City; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Maclay: The answer to both parts of the Question is "None, Sir."

Mr. Stodart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many people who are somewhat mystified at the way he feels unable to appreciate the importance of a by-pass round the City of Edinburgh? Is he also aware that my constituents in the Western Division of Edinburgh regard the by-pass round Edinburgh as much more important than even the Forth and Tay Bridges?

Mr. Maclay: I think my hon. Friend realises that a number of people in different parts of Scotland have different views on the relevant priorities of a great many things.

Rivers (Prevention of Pollution)

Sir J. Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to extend the present measures for the prevention of pollution of rivers in Scotland to their estuaries.

Mr. Maclay: I can make no forecast of future policy until I see what happens to the Clean Rivers (Estuaries and Tidal Waters) Bill in another place.

Sir J. Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend exercise his good offices with the Opposition to see that if Amendments extending this useful Bill to Scotland can be added in another place there will be no opposition from the Opposition when the Bill comes back to us for consideration of Lords Amendments?

Mr. Maclay: I agree that the extension of the Bill to Scotland would make for administrative simplicity and stimulate the progress that we would like to see, but I am aware that extension is opposed in certain quarters. If my hon. Friend can help me to overcome that, I will be very grateful.

Mr. T. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what progress is being made in implementing the provisions of the Act of 1951 with the Tay River Purification Board, which is the Board covering the constituency of the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir James Duncan)? Will he also say whether or not this is a matter that he could properly refer to the Scottish River Purification Advisory Committee?

Mr. Maclay: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is, not without notice, and the answer to the second part is that I should like to consider it.

Roads (Expenditure)

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much additional expenditure on roads will be incurred in Scotland during 1960 to assist in providing employment.

Mr. Maclay: I estimate that Government and local authority expenditure on the maintenance and improvement of trunk and classified roads in 1960–61 will be about £18 million as against £15·6 million in 1959–60.

Mr. Willis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is not really an answer to the Question? I asked how much additional expenditure is to be undertaken to assist unemployment in Scotland. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in spite of the jobs that we have promised in the pipeline, tens of thousands of Scotland's people will not be able to get jobs for a considerable period of time? Does he not think that this would be a good way of assisting them?

Mr. Maclay: A simple calculation will show the increase in expenditure over the two years, but, as I would point out again, because of modern methods of construction the direct contribution made by road works to employment is relatively small. I am fully aware of Scotland's employment problems, and I am considering them all the time.

Miss Herbison: Is the Secretary of State aware that, no matter how few may be the number of jobs provided, every single job is of importance when we have over 90,000 people unemployed?

Mr. Maclay: I certainly agree with that. I merely emphasise that roads themselves are not great employment producers.

Public Works

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for expanding the programme of public works, other than roads, in Scotland to assist in providing employment.

Mr. Maclay: The programme of works in Scotland for which I am responsible is already expanding and I expect that this year it will continue to expand.

Mr. Willis: Once again this is dodging the issue. Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that now that we have nearly 100,000 unemployed he ought to be expanding our housing programme, our forestry programme, our road programme, and all the things that would help to reduce that number?

Mr. Maclay: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but I have pointed out that the programme is expanding.

Public Authority Contracts

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it a condition of the award of public authority contracts in Scotland that the firms obtaining such contracts employ an adequate number of apprentices and provide approved training facilities by way of day-release education or otherwise.

Mr. Maclay: It would not be justified to ask public authorities to restrict the award of contracts in this manner as the


general rule is that public contracts should be awarded after open competition.
I am informed, however, that Scottish firms have a satisfactory record for the employment of apprentices but that much greater advantage could be taken of the facilities available for day release.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Secretary of State aware that Scotland still lags behind a great deal in the provision of day-release facilities, and that one of the most urgent needs of Scotland is to provide the maximum number of skilled jobs? I appreciate the difficulty of this suggestion, but would it not be an encouragement to firms applying for public contracts if public authorities had some discretionary powers in this matter?

Mr. Maclay: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the difficulty of his original suggestion. It is a very awkward one indeed, for obvious reasons. On the question of day release, as I have said in a number of speeches in Scotland, I think it is very desirable that the number of day-release students should increase.

Improvement Grants, Fife

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was paid out by Fife County Council in improvement grants in each of the last four years.

Mr. Maclay: The sums paid by the County Council in each of the four years up to 15th May, 1959, were £39,707, £46,128, £38,583 and £53,322 respectively.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this represents a quite intolerable burden on the ratepayers in Fife? Further, is he aware that, for instance, Sir John Gilmour has had in the last four years £5,110 in improvement grants, and Major Sir Robert Spencer Nairn has had £4,496, and that they are both prominent Tories? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the interests of the ratepayers, he will ask the county council, or give it authority, to ask these people to apply to the National Assistance Board so that they get improvement grants on the same basis as the old-age pensioners get theirs?

Mr. Maclay: I would be very glad if the hon. Member would ask the people

living in the houses which have been improved whether they resent the improvements done to them, and I would further point out to him that 540 dwellings have been brought up to date and given a further lease of useful life for the average expenditure from public funds of £330 per dwelling. I consider that to be really valuable work.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how and why the houses got into such a deplorable condition?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member knows very well that during the time his own party was in power, nothing like enough was done to repair this kind of property.

Mr. T. Fraser: Has the right hon. Gentleman so far forgotten himself as not to realise that these grants are provided under an Act passed by a Labour Government—the Housing (Scotland) Act of 1949?

Mr. Maclay: Yes, Sir, but what I regret very much is that much more use was not made of it during that Government's period of office.

Mr. Hamilton: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, and in order to save public money, I give notice that I shall endeavour to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Forth and Tay Road Bridges

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for the provision of either a new road or improvements of the existing roads between the North end of the Forth Road Bridge when constructed, and the South end of the projected Tay Road Bridge.

Mr. Maclay: I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Dr. A. Thompson) on 11th April.

Mr. Hamilton: I read that Answer, and, of course, it was not very satisfactory. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that part of Fife is now on the list of the Board of Trade precisely because there is a considerable degree of unemployment in the area, which is likely to get worse? Will he therefore speed up his efforts to attract industry and reduce the number of unemployed?

Mr. Maclay: In spite of all that the hon. Member said in reference to the previous Question, I will gladly sit down with him with a map and explain to him the reasons for my priorities in Fife.

QUESTIONS (WRITTEN ANSWERS)

Mr. Grey: asked the Prime Minister if he will instruct all Departments that when in future they give to the Press, with or without an accompanying statement, the Answers to Questions down for written reply, they should also make them available to all hon. Members by putting copies in the Vote Office so that they can be obtained on request.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I should be reluctant to change the existing arrangements which have, I believe, worked satisfactorily for a number of years.

Mr. Grey: May I ask the Prime Minister if he is aware how undesirable it is that outside bodies can have information before Members of Parliament? Is he aware that a recent Question was put down by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), in which a number of other hon. Members were interested, but there was no method of getting to know what the Answer was until next morning by reading it either in the Press or in HANSARD? Does not he agree that this is not a good thing?

The Prime Minister: This practice has gone on ever since I have been a Member of the House of Commons, and I have never heard it questioned before. If there is any feeling about it, no doubt it can be taken up through the usual channels. The only object is to meet the convenience of Members as far as possible.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is not the complaint of my hon. Friend not so much that it is the practice to inform the hon. Member who put the Question down, but of prior information being given to the Press so that it appears there before it appears in HANSARD? Will the Prime Minister look into that point?

The Prime Minister: It is that practice which has always gone on and I had never heard it challenged before. The Answer is supplied to HANSARD at the same time as it is supplied to the

Press. If there is any feeling, it is entirely a matter for the House to decide.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this particular instance this is not a repetition of a long-established practice at all, but this is the first time it has happened? It happened in the case of the Local Employment Act, when a great many people were interested in knowing what areas were in the list and what were added from time to time, and this procedure effectively prevents Members of Parliament from knowing what was going on.

The Prime Minister: It prevents them from knowing what is going on until the next morning.

Mr. Silverman: It is too late then.

The Prime Minister: As this Question was stated in general terms, I had no knowledge of what was the particular point raised. If a Question had been put down on any particular point I would have been glad to look into it.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that I have some sympathy with the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, because it would have been helpful if the information had been in the Vote Office? Therefore, if he could look into the matter, I am quite certain that it would be helpful to do so to both sides of the House.

The Prime Minister: Of course, I will look into it. Perhaps, it would be easier to discuss it, because there are other consequential things which may follow; for instance, Questions not raised or not reached which are normally printed, and so forth. We shall have to look into quite a considerable reorganisation of the present system, and I think I could not do that without some inquiry.

MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister the terms of the telegram sent to him recently by the Ayrshire Committee of the National Farmers' Union calling for the resignation of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; what reasons were given for this demand; and what was the nature of his reply.

The Prime Minister: I can find no trace of such a telegram having been received.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that that must be the fault of the Postmaster-General, because it was reported in the Scottish Farmer, a Conservative paper, that this telegram was sent? Is he aware that farmers in Scotland are so disgusted with his policy that even the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), one of his supporters, has described the Government's policy on sheep as "disastrously myopic"? What would his Arran ancestors think about that?

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the sheep or the shepherd are said to be myopic. I thought the hon. Member was too old a hand to believe everything he reads in newspapers. What I suppose happened was that they thought better of it, and did not send the telegram.

Mr. Hayman: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that on the tape an hour ago it was stated that there was a "New Prime Minister at Downing Street" under the heading "Prime Minister at Memorial Service"?

PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT EISENHOWER (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his discussions in Washington on European economic problems and on the question of a unified Western Europe.

Mr. S. Silverman: asked the Prime Minister what discussions he had during his recent visit to the United States of America with President Eisenhower, Mr. Secretary Herter or any other member of the United States Government concerning the danger to the United Kingdom of certain economic and political developments towards common action in Western Europe.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what I told the House on Friday, 1st April.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister in a reply last week

referred to the fact that he deplored the possibility of a split in Europe? May I ask him, therefore, whether, in view of this serious threat of a trade war, he would consider proposing a meeting between President de Gaulle, Dr. Adenauer, Mr. Erlander, the Swedish Prime Minister, and himself with a view to securing a basis of co-operation between the Economic Community and the European Free Trade Association?

The Prime Minister: I should like to take the opportunity of repeating that the United Kingdom welcomes the establishment of the Six as a contribution to the consolidation of Western Europe. It is to our interest that Western Europe should be strong and united, but we do feel that if the unity of the Six can be achieved only at the cost of doing economic harm to other countries of Western Europe, we might have averted one danger only to create another. The exact methods are at present being discussed in the various committees, and the Governments are in touch with each other. Perhaps we had better leave it at that for the moment, because the present situation is that a broad committee representative of the member-Governments of O.E.E.C, the United States, Canada and the European Commission is now considering this matter.

Mr. Silverman: Without wishing to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman in any way, may I ask him if he will bear in mind that if what he was trying to convey was the general anxiety in this country about a limited union in Western Europe dominated by Germany, he will find support in many unexpected quarters? Does he not consider that any such union, desirable though it is, would be much safer if it were more broadly based?

The Prime Minister: The first part of that supplementary question is hardly carried out by the second part. I did not make any reference—I repeat—to any question of domination by this or that country, but to the hope that we would be able to unite Europe on an economic basis as far as possible, without in any way doing anything that might damage the creation of the Six as part of the unity of central Western Europe.

Mr. Wade: In view of the serious consequences which may follow from the


exclusion of Britain from the Common Market, and of the growth of two separate economic blocs in Europe, as well as the urgency of the matter, may I ask the Prime Minister whether this subject was discussed during the visit to Britain of President de Gaulle, and whether, as a result, we may expect any modifications in policy on the part of Britain or of France?

The Prime Minister: All these questions are, of course, continually being discussed between the Governments. Machinery exists for trying to deal with them now, and I have every hope that we may find a solution which will be agreeable to all concerned. I think all countries of Europe realise the importance of keeping Western Europe as united as possible and working together in harmony.

UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (MISS MYRNA BLUMBERG)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations what representations he is making to the South African Government concerning the case of Miss Myrna Blumberg, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, employed in Cape Town as the correspondent of a London newspaper.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): I am asking the High Commissioner to make inquiries about this case. It is not, as far as I am aware, certain that Miss Blumberg, who was born in the Union of South Africa, is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

Mr. Thomson: Whatever the legal position of Miss Blumberg's citizenship, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that she is a British journalist, employed on a London newspaper? Will he instruct the High Commissioner to make the strongest possible protest to the Union of South Africa Government against any attempt to gag or intimidate a British journalist in South Africa to prevent presenting an accurate picture of events?

Mr. Alport: I fully agree with the hon. Member on the importance of the

accurate reporting of the circumstances there, but I think it also important that we should make certain of the position of Miss Blumberg from the point of view of nationality before we take further steps. We are making these inquiries from the High Commissioner and I hope to make a more general statement tomorrow. If there is any information available I shall try to include it in that.

Mr. Marquand: Has the hon. Gentleman noted the protest made by the Canadian Government when a Canadian journalist was arrested in this way? Does he not think that our protest ought to be at least as vigorous as that of Canada?

Mr. Alport: As I have pointed out, I think that the circumstances are not exactly the same. In the case of the Canadian journalist there was no doubt that he was, in fact, a citizen of Canada.

Mr. Gaitskell: Even supposing that Miss Blumberg is not a citizen of the United Kingdom, since she is a representative of a British newspaper would not the hon. Gentleman accept that it is the responsibility of the Government to inquire into the reasons for her arrest, indeed, to bring her every help and, I would hope, also to protest against any arrest without any charge being made against her?

Mr. Alport: In the case of an employee of a United Kingdom company serving abroad who is, in fact, a citizen of the country concerned, different circumstances arise, but I appreciate what the right hon. Member feels and means in his supplementary question. All I can say is that this will all be taken into consideration in whatever action we may take.

Mr. Gaitskell: Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that he would be making a statement on this matter tomorrow?

Mr. Alport: I said that I would be making a general statement in accordance with the undertakings I gave last week in regard to various matters relating to this. I will do my best to include information about this matter in that statement.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) raised with me a complaint of breach of Privilege relating to an article in the Sunday Express newspaper of last Sunday. I am obliged to him for the courteous manner in which he did so in circumstances difficult for any hon. Member.
I have consulted precedents and considered the matter. The question for me is whether or no the article or the words therein said to have been used by my wife constitute prima facie a contempt of this House of Parliament so as to entitle the hon. Member's complaint to precedence over the Notices of Motions and Orders of the Day standing on the Order Paper of Public Business of this House. In my opinion, they do not.
I regret that in this matter duty requires me to be a judge in my wife's cause, which is my own, but I cannot, in the service of the House on that account, allow myself to create a wrong precedent. I take comfort in the knowledge that my Ruling cannot in any way detract from the ancient and absolute right of this House to deal with such a matter precisely as it thinks fit.

Dr. Summerskill: While we recognise your difficult position, of course, Mr. Speaker, and we accept your Ruling, may I say this to the House? As this statement did reflect adversely on the work of 25 Members of the House, could the editor of the newspaper be asked to retract it next Sunday if it was a misquotation?

Mr. Speaker: I hope that I might be allowed to treat that matter as a personal one. I take full responsibility for what is done. I think it wiser that I should say no more.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

House to meet on Thursday at Eleven o'clock; no Questions to be taken after Twelve o'clock; and at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker to adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[The Prime Minister.]

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)

House, at its rising on Thursday, to adjourn till Tuesday, 26th April.— [Mr. Butler.]

RACE DISCRIMINATION

3.36 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make illegal discrimination to the detriment of any person on the grounds of colour, race and religion in the United Kingdom.
This is the fifth time that I have introduced this Bill. On all former occasions the House has given the Bill a First Reading, but when the Bill has reached Second Reading some hon. Members have not been so acquiescent. I hope that on this occasion all hon. Members, who, I believe, accept the principle of the Bill, will co-operate in securing its passage through the House.
When I decided to ask permission to bring in the Bill today, the question of racial discrimination did not occupy the dominant position which it now does in the political scene. It was a distinguished white South African who first encouraged me to introduce the Bill. I will not mention his name, because that might be regarded as evidence against him. He said that if this country wishes to influence that Dominion to practise racial equality, the best step we could take would be to pass legislation in this House against racial discrimination in Britain.
I appreciate that racial prejudice in this country is much less than in many other countries. Tolerance, not only of other people's opinions, but of other people's different backgrounds and racial origins, is a matter for the pride of all of us in Britain. But racial prejudice does exist, and it is wider than many suspect.
My Bill would deal not only with discrimination on the grounds of colour, but also of race and religion. It would include the Jewish race and the Jewish religion. I have been disturbed by the extent of prejudice against that race and their religion.
Racial prejudice in this country is aggravated by social conditions, and particularly housing conditions. I recognise that it cannot be overcome by legislation. Fundamentally, if racial prejudice is to be removed from our minds, it must be done by education, experience, and the growth of civilised conditions and opinions. There is, however, a definite place for legislation if


we sincerely accept the principle that there should be racial equality in our land.
My Bill would limit legislation to public places and institutions and to social contracts. It would make discrimination illegal in the following public places and institutions: hotels, common lodging houses, restaurants, cafes and public houses, dance halls and places of entertainment. When I last introduced the Bill, it was urged that hotels were already covered. They are covered in relation to accommodation, but they are not covered in relation to their restaurants and bars. That is the first proposal of my Bill.
Secondly, the Bill would make illegal any discrimination in a lease for accommodation. I recognise that the most common practice of colour prejudice in this country is in relation to private lodgings. I have not included them in the Bill, because, in my view, it would be wrong to say that any man or woman must take another person into his or her home if he or she does not wish to do so on the ground of colour or for any other reason. But it is a different thing if it is a lease for the accommodation of a house or flat. We have the right to say that this prejudice shall not debar anyone from renting a house or flat which will not interfere with the private life of any other family.
Thirdly, the Bill would apply to employment or promotion in employment. I will give one example of the need in that respect. Last week, the President of the National Union of Students, Mr. Dennis Grennan, said:
Racial discrimination does not affect students in South Africa only. Considerable numbers of overseas students studying in Britain are experiencing discrimination as they seek vacation work. Almost every week the Vacation Work Department of the Union have to refuse to provide students to employers who will take only white students.
Last Friday, the House unanimously deplored racial discrimination in another land. I submit that we have no right to do that unless we end discrimination, so far as we can, in public places and social contracts in our own land I ask leave to present my Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Brockway, Mr. Sorensen, Mrs. Castle, Mr. Hale, Mr. Benn, Mr. Foot, Miss Lee, Mrs. Hart, Mr. Baird, Mr. Janner, Sir L. Plummer, and Mr. Stonehouse.

RACE DISCRIMINATION

Bill to make illegal discrimination to the detriment of any person on the grounds of colour, race and religion in the United Kingdom, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 29th April, and to be printed. [Bill 95.]

WAYS AND MEANS [4th April]

Resolutions reported.

For particulars of Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1960; Vol. 621, c. 64–75.]

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolu-

tion, put forthwith on each Resolution, pursuant to Standing Order No. 86 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions).

First Resolution—Tobacco (customs and excise)—read a Second time.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution:—

The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 220.

Division No. 72.]
AYES
[3.48 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cunningham, Knox
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Currie, G. B. H.
Hopkins, Alan


Allason, James
Dance, James
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia


Alport, C. J. M.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Amory, Rt.Hn.D.Heathcoat (Tiv'tn)
Deedes, W. F.
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)


Arbuthnot, John
de Ferranti, Basil
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Atkins, Humphrey
Donaldson, Cmdr, C. E. M.
Hughes-Young, Michael


Balniel, Lord
Drayson, G. B.
Hurd, Sir Anthony


Barber, Anthony
du Cann, Edward
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Barlow, Sir John
Duncan, Sir James
Iremonger, T. L.


Barter, John
Duthie, Sir William
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Batsford, Brian
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Jackson, John


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Eden, John
James, David


Bell, Philip (Bolton E.)
Elliott, R. W.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks)
Emery, Peter
Jennings, J. C.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Erroll, F. J.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Berkeley, Humphry
Farr, John
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Finlay, Graeme
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Bidgood, John C.
Fisher, Nigel
Joseph, Sir Keith


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bishop, F. P.
Forrest, George
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Black, Sir Cyril
Foster, John
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Bossom, Clive
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Bourne-Arton, A.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kershaw, Anthony


Box, Donald
Freeth, Denzil
Kimball, Marcus


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Kirk, Peter


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gammans, Lady
Kitson, Timothy


Braine, Bernard
Gardner, Edward
Lagden, Godfrey


Brewis, John
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Gibson-Watt, David
Langford-Holt, J.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Glover, Sir Douglas
Leavey, J. A.


Brooman-White, R.
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Leburn, Gilmour


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Glyn, Col. Richard
Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.


Bryan, Paul
Godber, J. B.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. Alan


Bullard, Denys
Goodhart, Philip
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Goodhew, Victor
Lilley, F. J. P.


Burden, F. A.
Gough, Frederick
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Gower, Raymond
Litchfield, Capt. John


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Longbottom, Charles


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Green, Alan
Longden, Gilbert


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Loveys, Walter H.


Cary, Sir Robert
Grimston, Sir Robert
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Channon, H. P. G.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Chataway, Christopher
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Chichester-Clark, R.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
McAdden, Stephen


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Harris, Reader (Heston)
MacArthur, Ian


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
McLaren, Martin


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Cleaver, Leonard
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Cole, Norman
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs)


Collard, Richard
Hay, John
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Cooke, Robert
Head, Rt. Hon. Antony
McMaster, Stanley R.


Cooper, A. E.
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Macmillan,Rt. Hn.Harold(Bromley)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Cordle, John
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Corfield, F. V.
Hendry, Forbes
Maddan, Martin


Costain, A. P.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Maginnis, John E.


Coulson, J. M.
Hiley, Joseph
Maitland, Cdr. J. W.


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Mannlngham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Critchley, Julian
Hocking, Philip N.
Marlowe, Anthony


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Holland, Philip
Marples, Rt Hon. Ernest


Crowder, F. P.
Hollingworth, John
Marshall, Douglas




Marten, Neil
Rawlinson, Peter
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Matthews, Cordon (Meriden)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Mawby, Ray
Rees, Hugh
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Renton, David
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Mills, Stratum
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Montgomery, Fergus
Ridsdale, Julian
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Moore, Sir Thomas
Rippon, Geoffrey
Tlley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Morgan, William
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Morrison, John
Robson Brown, Sir William
Turner, Colin


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Neave, Airey
Roots, William
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Nicholls, Harmar
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Vane, W. M. F.


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Noble, Michael
Russell, Ronald
Vickers, Miss Joan


Nugent, Sir Richard
Scott-Hopkins, James
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Seymour, Leslie
Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Sharples, Richard
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Shaw, M.
Ward, Rt. Hon. George (Worcester)


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Simon, Sir Jocelyn
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Page, A. J. (Harrow, W.)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chlswick)
Watts, James


Page, Graham
Smithers, Peter
Webster, David


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Partridge, E.
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Whitelaw, William


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Peel, John
Speir, Rupert
wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Percival, Ian
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wise, A. R.


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Stodart, J. A.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Pitman, I. J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Pitt, Miss Edith
Storey, Sir Samuel
Woodhouse, C. M.


Pott, Percivall
Studholme, Sir Henry
Woodnutt, Mark


Powell, J. Enoch
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Woollam, John


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Talbot, John E.
Worsley, Marcus


Price, H. A (Lewisham, w.)
Tapsell, Peter



Prior, J. M. L.
Taylor, Sir, Charles (Eastbourne)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Mr. Legh and


Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Teeling, William
Mr. Edward Wakefield.


Ramsden, James
Temple, John M.





NOES


Abse, Leo
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Ainsley, William
Deer, George
Hunter, A. E.


Albu, Austen
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dempsey, James
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Diamond, John
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Dodds, Norman
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Baird, John
Donnelly, Desmond
Jeger, George


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Drlberg, Tom
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Beaney, Alan
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Eds, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphlliy)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Benn, Hn. A.Wedgwood(Brlst'l,S.E.)
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Benson, Sir George
Evans, Albert
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Blackburn, F.
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Blyton, William
Fitch, Alan
Kelley, Richard


Boardman, H.
Fletcher, Erie
Kenyan, Clifford


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Forman, J. C.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Bowles, Frank
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
King, Dr. Horace


Boyden, James
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Lawson, George


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Ledger, Ron


Brockway, A. Fenner
Ginsburg, David
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. c.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Drown, Alan (Tottenham)
Gourlay, Harry
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Greenwood, Anthony
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Grey, Charles
Lipton, Marcus


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Logan, David


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Loughlln, Charles


Callaghan, James
Gunter, Ray
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Carmichael, James
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
McCann, John


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
MacColl, James


Chapman, Donald
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mclnnes, James


Chetwynd, George
Hannan, William
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Collick, Percy
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mackle, John


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hayman, F. H.
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Craddock. George (Bradford, S.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(Rwly Regis)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Cronin, John
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Mahon, Simon


Crosland, Anthony
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Holman, Percy
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Houghton, Douglas
Manuel, A. C.


Darling, George
Howell, Charles A.
Mapp, Charles


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hoy, James H.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Marsh, Richard


Davies, Iford (Gower)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Mason, Roy







Mellish, R. J.
Redhead, E. C.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Mendelson, J. J.
Reid, William
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Millan, Bruce
Reynolds, G. W.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda W.)


Mitchison, G. R.
Rhodes, H.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Monslow, Walter
Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Moody, A. S.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thornton, Ernest


Morris, John
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Moyle, Arthur
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Warbey William


Mulley, Frederick
Ross, William
Watkins, Tudor


Neal, Harold
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Weitzman, David


Oliver, G. H.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Oram, A. E.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Oswald, Thomas
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wheeldon, W E.


Owen, Will
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Padley, W. E.
Small, William
Whitlock, William


Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Snow, Julian
Wigg, George


Pargiter, G. A.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wilkins, W. A.


Pavitt, Laurence
Spriggs Leslie
Willey, Frederick


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Steele, Thomas
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Peart, Frederick
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)


Pentland, Norman
Stonehouse, John
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Stones, William
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Popplewell, Ernest
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Prentice, R. E.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Probert, Arthur
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith
Wyatt, Woodrow


Proctor, W. T.
Swain, Thomas
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Swingler, Stephen
Zilliacus, K.


Randall, Harry
Sylvester, George



Rankin, John
Symonds, J. B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Short.

Second to Twenty-second Resolutions agreed to.

FINANCE [EXCHEQUER ADVANCES]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorise such increase in the sums which, under section forty-two of the Finance Act, 1956, are authorised or required to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing, or paid into the Exchequer, as may be attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session continuing the power to make advances under that section (subject to the limits for the time being in force on the borrowing powers of the bodies to which such advances may be made), and repealing the limit imposed by subsection (3) of that section on the total of the advances which may be made thereunder.

Resolution agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [7th April]

Resolution reported;

AMENDMENT OF THE LAW

That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the national debt, and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance, so, however, that this Resolution shall not extend to making amendments of the enactments relating to purchase tax so as to give relief from tax, other than

amendments making the same provision for chargeable goods of whatever description or for all goods to which any of the several rates of tax at present applies.

Resolution read a Second time.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to standing Order No. 86 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution and upon the other Resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means and the Resolution reported from the Committee on Finance [Exchequer Advances] and agreed to this day, by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir E. Boyle, Mr. Barber, and the Attorney-General.

FINANCE

Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, and to amend the law relating to the National Debt and the Public Revenue, and to make further provision in connection with Finance, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 96.]

POST-WAR CREDITS

4.5 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): I beg to move,
That the Post-War Credit (Income Tax) Amendment Regulations, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 4th April, be approved.
As I think the House is well aware, in the present state of the economy my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer felt that this year he could not propose any very large acceleration of the rate of repayment of post-war credits. But, during the months I have been in my present office, I know that there has been a great deal of concern in all parts of the House over the possibility of a further release of credits in hardship cases, particularly to the long-term sick. I recall many Questions on this subject from both sides of the House. My right hon. Friend felt that he could this year bring in some new classes which it is practicable to include in the operation of repayment of these credits.
I think that it might be helpful to the House if I reminded hon. Members of the categories included in these new Regulations. First, let me deal with the long-term sick—that is to say, persons who, for a continuous period of 26 weeks ending after 4th April, 1960, have been receiving sickness or injury benefit, or have been in-patients in hospitals or nursing homes. The second category covers persons who, after 4th April, 1960, are receiving war or industrial injuries disability pensions in respect of assessments of 100 per cent., or an allowance under the Workmen's Compensation and Benefit (Supplementation) Act, 1956, or the Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Act (Northern Ireland), 1956. The third category covers persons who, for a continuous period of 26 weeks ending after 4th April, 1960, have been registered as unemployed. The final category covers any person who, at any time after 4th April, 1960, is a widow.
We gave considerable thought to the question of widows, and I am very glad that we have been able to bring all widows into the repayment scheme this year, because it is my impression—and I think that I shall not be alone in the House in this matter—that a great many

widows, particularly those with parental responsibilities, have not an easy time in our society at present. I am, therefore, glad that we have been able by this means to do something for a number of very deserving people.
I should now like to say a word about the cost of these proposals. They will cost about £9 million this year, and the number of new claimants will be about 300,000, in addition to the 350,000 cases repayable under the existing law. Roughly speaking, there are about 160,000 long-term sick, and the repayment of their post-war credits will cost about £6 million. Only about 7,000 people come within the disability category which I mentioned and the repayment of their credits will cost about £250,000. About 40,000 come within the unemployed category and they will cost about £1¼ million. Finally, 80,000 widows will receive repayment at a cost of £1½ million.
Next, I think that it would be helpful if I were to say a word about the timetable that we propose. I am sorry, in a sense, that we have had to trouble the House so soon with these Regulations, after a week during which we have had something of an orgy of economic debate, but, as the House will realise, we were keen to speed up the procedure as fast as we reasonably could. The intention is that claim forms under the new release will be available in post offices from 16th May, and claims can be made from that date.
As hon. Members will have seen, the Regulations provide that no repayment of credits is to be made before 13th June. This interval between 16th May and 13th June is necessary to enable the Revenue to have the new claims certified by the appropriate authority. The interval between the passing of the Regulations and 16th May is needed partly to enable the Stationery Office to do the printing and the Post Office to distribute the claim forms to many offices up and down the country, and partly so that the Inland Revenue Department can get on with the work caused by the Budget proposals for alterations in the personal allowances. One must never forget the work that the Inland Revenue has to do at this time of year, as the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) will know much better than I.
To give publicity to the new classes who will qualify this year, it is my right hon. Friend's intention that we should insert advertisements in the local and national newspapers nearer the time when the claim forms become available. These advertisements will be in addition to those which are being inserted this week, which are designed merely to prevent disappointment and to stop people from making premature applications. There will be a new set of advertisements in the local and national Press nearer to 16th May.
As the House will have seen, the Regulations are subject to affirmative Resolution procedure. The whole work of printing will not start until the draft Regulations have been approved by this House. Plans have, however, been made and forms have been provisionally drafted on the assumption that my right hon. Friend's proposals will be acceptable to the House. Today, hon. Members have a full opportunity of considering the Regulations before, as it were, any irrevocable step about them is taken.
I believe that we have now gone as far as we can go in the Budget in isolating particular hardship categories. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer very much hopes that in future years it may be possible to continue the repayment of post-war credits. We must, however, do this henceforward as economic circumstances allow. We must do it on a general basis and not by trying to isolate new hardship categories. The House will realise that when trying to proceed by specific hardship categories it is essential that those categories should be objective, so that there can be clear and objective tests as to who is included and who is not. Otherwise, we should get into a good deal of injustice and inequity.
Hon. Members will recall that all post-war credits now bear compound interest as from 1st November, 1959, at the rate of 2½ per cent. free of tax. This makes post-war credits a perfectly reasonable investment to hold, certainly at a time when, we very much hope, we shall continue price stability. It means that except for those who are desperately in need of the money to spend at once, there is now, perhaps, not quite the same ultimate hardship in waiting for repayment of post-war credits.
I know that in many cases which have been brought to my attention by hon. Members, people have been anxiously awaiting the repayment of their credits, and that in hardship cases people might not want to apply for National Assistance, and feel that to be able to cash their credits when they are ill would just make all the difference. I am glad that we are now able to deal with a considerably increased number of hard cases.
I realise the disappointment which must still be felt by those who are not able to cash their credits. Perhaps, however, we should remember that the reason why we have had this economic problem of repaying post-war credits is precisely because we have had such a greater and higher level of prosperity since the war than anybody guessed at the time that the scheme of post-war credits was devised.
When post-war credits were originally devised, it was thought by many economists that the main trouble of the country after the war might be a general deficiency of purchasing power, and that these credits might be a useful cushion if ever unemployment threatened. It is worth remembering that the sole reason why people have had to wait so long for the repayment of their credits is simply the general level of prosperity, and the fact that we have been threatened, not by unemployment, but constantly by excess pressure on our resources.
My right hon. Friend has taken the right decision about repayment of credits this year, and it is with pleasure and confidence that I commend the Regulations to the House.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has introduced the Regulations in his usual lucid and agreeable manner and I am sure that the House agrees with a good deal of what he said about the proposals of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor this year. These Regulations are the second which have been laid before the House under the Income Tax (Repayment of Post-War Credits) Act, 1959.
Last year's Regulations contained a much more generous repayment of postwar credits than the Regulations which are before us this afternoon. The Financial Secretary has referred to the fact


that last year the Regulations provided for a reduction in the age limit for men from 65 to 63 and for women from 60 to 58 to qualify for repayment of credits without any hardship conditions. Another feature of last year's Regulations, which was fairly costly, was the repayment in all cases of death up to that time. In fact, the estimated repayment in cases of death was almost as much as the cost of repayment at the lower age limits.
The hardship cases that were included last year are three in number. First, there were those who had been on National Assistance for 12 weeks; secondly, the registered blind; and, thirdly, those receiving constant attendance allowance or unemployability supplement under war pensions instruments, Industrial Injuries Acts, and so on, or alternative benefits.
It is worth considering what happened on cost last year, because I shall have something to say about the possibility of the Chancellor having done something earlier this year than today. Last year's estimated expenditure on post-war credits was £89 million. Only £64 million was repaid. The Chancellor, therefore, saved £25 million of his estimate of expenditure on post-war credits last year. It is also worth reminding ourselves that there is still £340 million to be repaid.
As the Financial Secretary has pointed out, under last year's Act post-war credits attract 2½ per cent. compound interest. The hon. Gentleman said that they are not a bad investment, and that is true, but, nevertheless, it is a compulsory investment. On the whole, investors are not as pleased at the conditions of an investment when it is compulsory as when they have voluntarily undertaken it. We must take his praise of post-war credits being a good investment with just that little pinch of salt.
In today's Regulations, we have an extension only of the hardship categories. For the reasons mentioned by the Financial Secretary a moment or two ago, the Chancellor has not been able this year to include in the Regulations a reduction in the age limits at which postwar creditors might claim repayment. I do not propose to dwell on that omission—

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member, whom I regret to interrupt, will

not dwell on any omission, because that would be out of order. I have to say this to keep the debate in order.

Mr. Houghton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You anticipated me by a split second. I was just about to say that it would not be in order. In any case, the debates on the Budget dealt with the wider aspects, including the repayment of post-war credits.
It is the hardship groups comprised in the draft Regulations which we now have to consider. The first and most important of the new hardship groups is the first, that of the prolonged sickness cases. On this side of the House we pressed upon the Chancellor last year the special claim of this group of holders of post-war credits. In the OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1959; c. 224, there is a report of the debate that we had on an Amendment to the Bill to include the prolonged sickness cases. There were all sorts of reasons why this could not be done last year, but in the Regulations this year we are very glad to see the prolonged sickness cases included in the list.
The Financial Secretary has estimated that there are 160,000 cases and that the cost is likely to be about £6 million. I know how difficult it is to make reliable estimates in this respect, but I recall that last year we were told to expect 200,000 cases at a cost of between £7 million and £8 million. The annual cost is likely to be less than that. We must bear in mind that this is a continuing charge, because repayments will fall due on new cases of prolonged sickness as well as in respect of those who, unhappily, have already been on sickness benefit for some time.
The then Financial Secretary, the present Solicitor-General, told the Committee on the Bill last year that prolonged sickness cases would be one of the very early classes to be considered for future relief. The other cases on the list are also very deserving, and we on this side of the House are very glad too to see that all widows will now be included within the scope of repayment. We have a special feeling for their difficulties and sorrows, and I am sure that this provision for repayment to all widows will be most gratefully received. It will be a comfort to many women, who, in other circumstances, have felt


that the world is dealing rather hardly with them.
I want to ask the Chancellor why he has left until now the introduction of Regulations to include these new hardship groups. I have already pointed out that the Chancellor saved £25 million on his estimate of post-war credit repayments last year. So he would have known that by the close of the year the repayments that were being made during the peak period of June to October last year were falling short of his estimate. It seems to me that, as things turned out, the Chancellor could have included the long-term sick some months ago in Regulations laid before the House, without any financial embarrassment.
When the Income Tax (Repayment of Post-War Credits) Act, 1959, was passed, one of the reasons given for it was that it would give the Chancellor greater freedom of movement on the repayment of post-war credits. If any repayments were tied up with the Finance Bill he would be prevented from acting, first, before the Finance Bill become law, and, secondly, between one Finance Bill and another. It is true that by Regulations under the Act last year and by the use of Regulations under the Act this year, repayments will be made somewhat earlier than they could have been had the provision been made only in the Finance Bill for this operation. We fully appreciate that.
The Financial Secretary has explained the timetable to us, which clearly provides for repayment earlier than would have been possible had it been necessary to have a Clause in the Finance Bill. It seems surprising that, so far, the Chancellor has been able to use the powers, given by the Act to lay Regulations, only on the occasion of the Budget. Last year, I could understand that—large-scale repayment was involved. This year, it was on a very much smaller scale and there was no reason why the Chancellor should wait until his Budget statement to announce a further extension of hardship cases when he had saved the money —and more than saved the money last year—and could have laid Regulations to extend the hardship group to one or more of those now proposed.
The right hon. Gentleman could have laid Regulations at any time for long sickness cases which were so strongly

urged upon him a year ago, and the statement then made by the Financial Secretary was so hopeful that I was very confident that the Chancellor would do something about the prolonged sickness cases much earlier than this.
I know that last year the right hon. Gentleman asked us especially not to press him to extend the hardship groups he then proposed, I think for all sorts of reasons—the forms were ready for printing; but we are assured now that they are in draft only—the wheels have not started turning. One point I make, then, is: why not earlier? That is not to criticise the action of the Chancellor now, but in all hardship cases to get repayment earlier rather than later is obviously to be desired.
Another aspect of this matter which I hope the House will forgive me if I mention is that of administration. Had the Chancellor taken earlier steps for repayment of post-war credits in these hardship cases he would have avoided piling up two lots of extra work on his Department just now. There is work to be done arising from the Budget Resolutions and the extending of certain personal reliefs, and also this additional work of repayment of post-war credits, although, I must freely admit, the amount of work involved in the repayment of post-war credits this year is only a fraction of that of last year.
Nevertheless, it means, on the estimate of 300,000 cases, about 250,000 hours of overtime which has to be linked with 350,000 hours of overtime on coding changes, which means that over 500,000 hours of overtime altogether to be spread over the staff likely to do this work will amount to about ten hours' overtime a week for four weeks spread over the period in which this work has to be done between now and the end of June. I do not want to make too much of a song about this, but I think that the Chancellor must always have in mind—I am sure that he has—the effect on administration of proposals that he brings to the House.
It is particularly galling when the staff finds that a mistake out of well over 1 million post-war credits last year is blown to national Press proportions and they are made to look close-fisted and inefficient because, unhappily, two postwar creditors of the same name get mixed


up and one man receives a larger amount than he is entitled to. The conditions under which the work was done were bound to lead to some faults, unhappily, in isolated cases.
The Financial Secretary says that the Chancellor has come to the end of the hardship groups. I think that it will be admitted that he has come almost to the end of the hardship groups which satisfy the test of verification and certification for the purpose of authority to the Inland Revenue to repay. I think that it will be agreed on both sides of the House that one of the essential conditions that claims on hardship grounds must satisfy is a reasonable test of authenticity, and so far all the hardship cases have been available for certification by appropriate authorities of one kind or another, whether the Ministry of National Insurance or, as now, the Ministry of Labour and the National Assistance Board, and so on.
One of the big points made in the debate last year, and again today by the Financial Secretary, was that it was necessary to have a firm basis upon which the title to repayment could be easily proved, so that the Inland Revenue would not be left in the position of being a kind of unofficial National Assistance Board, still less an unofficial medical board. But I have two marginal groups which I wish to mention. I gave the Chancellor, a few days ago, advance notice of one of them.
I refer, first, to the wives of men who would be entitled to the repayment of post-war credits under all the hardship groups. The concession under last year's regulations and under the draft Regulations now before us applies only to the holder of the post-war credits who, in most cases, will be the husband. There are some cases, however, where the wife of a beneficiary will have a small post-war credit of her own, and there is no provision for her to obtain payment in circumstances which, so far as her husband is concerned, are acknowledged to justify the repayment of post-war credits.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is suggesting that another category should be included, unless I have misheard him. I am sorry to remind him of his intentions, which were good.

Mr. Houghton: It seems to me, if I may say so, that by facilitating the freedom of movement of the Chancellor of

the Exchequer we have seriously restricted our own freedom in debate. We have given it away, as it were, to the right hon. Gentleman to produce draft Regulations under the Act, and by the rules of order we are strictly circumscribed in our discussion of the categories in the draft Regulations.
It is a lesson which we shall have to bear in mind for the future—that if we want to criticise what the Chancellor is proposing on post-war credits we must not leave it until the draft Regulations come before the House. We shall have to shout loud during the Budget Resolutions, because that will be the last chance that we shall have; for there will nothing in the Finance Bill on the matter.
I do not want to split hairs, Mr. Speaker, but what I was raising a few moments ago was not so much a new category of hardship cases as the wives of those who are already in the hardship groups, and I suggested that the Chancellor should consider this point. The Financial Secretary said that no final steps had been taken, that the forms were in draft but were not being printed. The House still has the power, but now it seems that all that the House has the power to do is to approve the lot or throw out the lot, which scarcely gives the House very much room to manŒuvre. If that is all we can do, the Financial Secretary might just as well go on printing the forms before he submits the draft Regulations to the House, because he can be confident that we shall not be able to alter them.

Sir E. Boyle: I agree that today we can only discuss what is in the Regulations, but presumably there is nothing to prevent any hon. Member raising this matter on the Adjournment at a later date if he thinks that a further category should be included, because it does not involve any matter of legislation in the House.

Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order. Will you give us some assistance in this matter, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? I do not want to make heavy weather of it, but, obviously, there are certain categories of hardship which are not clearly defined as far as the Financial Secretary's statement has gone. We are not trying to introduce new categories, but we want to elucidate how the formula


for deciding hardship cases is applied under the Regulations. May I put a question to illustrate the point?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I find myself in a little difficulty in replying to that on a point of order. May I take, first, the point put by the hon. Baronet the Financial Secretary? Yes, it will undoubtedly remain in order for anybody to raise on the Adjournment any point here. No question of legislation will debar that.
As for the second point, I find it difficult to accept the argument of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) on a point of order. I feel that it could be argued in a different way.

Mr. Houghton: Further to that point of order. Would it be in order for me to say that I strongly criticise the draft Regulations now before the House because they omit certain categories or shades of difference which, to me, it would be necessary to include to make the Regulations fully acceptable?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As long as the hon. Member confines himself to regretting the omission, well and good, but if he argues the merits of these other cases we shall be in difficulty again.

Mr. Houghton: I am very much obliged Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because now I can be full of regret. I regret the omission from the Regulations of provision for the repayment to the wife of a beneficiary within the hardship groups. I do not think that I need press that matter further, because, obviously, the Financial Secretary knows what is involved here. In all these cases there is not only an element of personal hardship, but an element of domestic hardship. Therefore, the matter should be treated as far as needful on a domestic basis.
I also regret the failure of the Regulations to attempt to deal with the totally incapacitated person who is non-employed under the National Insurance scheme. I know that there is a problem of certification here, but one must regret, in passing, that there are some left out of the Regulations who have a claim to repayment on the ground of total incapacity if that incapacity could be certified by an appropriate authority,

and because it cannot they are out. I hope that the Financial Secretary will not give up that matter in despair and say that it cannot be done.
I come to my conclusion by making one or two comments on the situation generally. I think that the House will agree that it would be a mistake to regard the repayment of post-war credits as a social payment, or at least as only a social payment. After all, this is repayment of Government debt, and in agreeing to repay it in the case of these hardship groups, the Government are taking compassion on certain of their creditors. To put it another way, they are virtually coming to an arrangement with their creditors to relieve hardship.
The Government say that for economic reasons they are unable to discharge their full liability on this occasion; they are not "broke", but they have not the money to spare. Therefore, the extension of repayment must be confined to those who would suffer hardship on account of the delay in general repayment. As the hon. Baronet said, there is no doubt that the solution to this perennial problem is the repayment of post-war credits as a whole. That time will no doubt come, but in the meantime we are relieving hardship in this way.
I hope, however, that our approach to the repayment of post-war credits will not lose sight of the ultimate liability nor slacken our interest in getting the whole repaid. Otherwise, these repayments on hardship grounds become a kind of supplement to, or substitute for, social welfare payments and pensions of one kind or another, and that is not really desirable as a fixed and long-term policy on this important matter.
With those qualifications, we on these benches welcome the decision of the Chancellor to expand the hardship groups this time, we are fully confident that his programme will be fulfilled, and that, if he carries out his promise to publicise widely the grounds for claim, there should be few people who do not know of their rights a few weeks' from now.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: I wish to emphasise the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), namely, that


the repayment of post-war credits must in no circumstances be considered as a social payment. As he rightly said, this is repayment of debts incurred by the Revenue. In fact, it would be interesting to know if the Revenue would be able to treat with the taxpayer in the reverse situation. I doubt very much whether that would be so.
I want to offer my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for these new concessions. I have assumed that the first classification of sickness includes multiple and disseminated sclerosis, a sickness with which I have been concerned for some time and about which I have had correspondence with my right hon. Friend.
I find two anomalies in the Explanatory Note which accompanies the Regulations. It will be seen from paragraphs (a) and (c) that repayment can be made in the first case only to persons who have had a continuous period of sickness for 26 weeks ending after 4th April. In other words, they do not qualify unless they have been sick for six months, which takes them right up to October of this year.

Sir E. Boyle: Sir E. Boyle indicated dissent.

Mr. Cooper: That is how it reads. Paragraph (c), which deals with unemployment, states:
Persons who have been registered as unemployed for a continuous period of 26 weeks ending after 4th April, 1960.
I would like a better understanding of these paragraphs. Am I to understand that in the first case, if somebody has been receiving sickness benefit for 26 weeks ending 5th April, 1960, he will qualify for repayment of post-war credits and, in the second case, that somebody who has been unemployed for 26 weeks ending 5th April will then qualify for repayment?

Sir E. Boyle: It only has to end after 4th April; it does not have to begin then.

Mr. Cooper: Then I am satisfied.
On the question of publicity, which is all-important in these matters, my right hon. Friend referred to the use of the local and national Press. I hope that he will not overlook television, which is probably more widely looked at than even some of our newspapers. I am sure

that both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. would give him all the help that he needed in this respect.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: The Financial Secretary made an agreeable statement, and, therefore, in the few moments in which I shall detain the House I do not want to be too critical of what he said. At this stage, however, we are entitled to some clarification of his statement, particularly in relation to the point brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton).
There is undoubtedly in this country a wide range of people holding post-war credits who could not qualify for benefit under the National Insurance Act. I do not want to suggest on this occasion that we bring in new classes, but the definition which is being used in the Regulations, and which has been referred to by the Minister in his statement, assumes that the persons concerned must have been in receipt of either unemployment or sickness benefit for a period of 26 weeks.
May I remind the Minister of what happened last year on the modified concessions then made? What happened was related to the qualification for National Assistance benefit. In other words, to establish a claim for payment on hardship grounds, under the previous Regulation, a person had to show that he was in such a deplorable state of hardship that he had been forced to apply for National Assistance benefit. That was prior to the new statement made in this year's Budget. We objected on many occasions. I did so and I raised particular cases of constituents with the right hon. Gentleman's Department, which were considered but could not be dealt with at that time.
If we are now to relate these new qualifications only to people who can certify that they are entitled either to unemployment or sickness benefit over a period, we shall still be leaving out of account, unless this matter is clarified, a large number of spinsters and others who may have been holding credits but who will not be entitled to benefit under this Act because they have not been employed recently. Will the Minister clarify that point when he replies to this short debate?
My second point, which I mention in passing, concerns the payment of interest. Quite rightly, in my opinion, the Government have agreed to acknowledge payment of interest at the rate of 2½ per cent. on the outstanding credits. One has to remember that these are social debts, in the true sense, between the Treasury and the people. Whether they were regarded merely as debts of honour, or as debts which could be enforced in a legal sense, is a matter not to be debated on this occasion. Nevertheless, they were incurred at a time when the value of money was much higher than it is today. Therefore, everybody who holds these certificates on the Treasury, which are to be encashed, will receive in actual cash now something of much less value than it was when the debt was incurred.
We cannot deal with that, because it is the result of inflation, but when we deal with the question of interest we are entitled to make the following point. These debts have been left outstanding —for a number of valid reasons, I am prepared to admit—due to the economic circumstances of the country, for over twenty years. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees to pay interest at the rate of 2½ per cent. on a debt which is standing now at about £340 million—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I fear that the hon. Member is getting too far from the point. I do not think that this is all included in the Regulations which we are now discussing.

Mr. Price: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I hoped that I was keeping strictly within the terms of order. Indeed, I thought that on this matter of the interest payment I would be in order, because the Financial Secretary made specific reference to it when he addressed the House a short time ago. I merely wish to draw attention to the fact that this year, on a simple calculation, the interest amounts to about £8½ million. If this sum is allowed to stand, and is not substantially reduced over the next ten or fifteen years, the amount of interest which will have to be shouldered by the Treasury will bear a big relationship to the total sum then outstanding, and, accordingly, will greatly inflate the

payments made by the Treasury to people who have post-war credits outstanding.
Finally, is the Chancellor satisfied that of all the millions of our fellow citizens who hold these certificates even a small fraction of them could produce them on demand? I fear that the greater the period of time that elapses since the end of the war—twenty years have already passed—the fewer will be the number of people who will be able to produce the certificates. I doubt very much whether I could find mine. I have certainly got a few lying about somewhere. They do not represent a very material amount, but, nevertheless, they might be cashable some day.
Unless a very definite statement is made and widely publicised through the Press and, as has been suggested, through television, that the mere failure to produce the certificates does not invalidate a citizen's claim to have the money repaid, the more likely it is that we shall get the sort of situation that we have this year.
One of the items in the Budget this year consisted of £25 million that had not been used for the repayment of post-war credits under last year's arrangement and which the Chancellor expected to pay out. I would hazard the guess that a great many have not been repaid because the people concerned cannot find the certificates and, therefore, think that they have no grounds upon which to claim repayment from the Treasury.
I would welcome some more widespread publicity being given to the fact that all the necessary records are in the records of the Inland Revenue Department, that it is only necessary for the person who thinks that he has a claim to repayment to make that claim and that the mere failure to produce the certificate does not put him out of court.
I welcome the Financial Secretary's statement. It represents a step forward. However, I think that we must take serious note of the need to repay postwar credits much more quickly in the next few years than they have been repaid over the last twenty years.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: I am glad to have the opportunity of supporting the points put forward by my hon.


Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price). I have raised the question of the repayment of post-war credits in the House on many occasions, and last year I was pleased that the Chancellor made another start in increasing the rate of repayment. I am glad that the Financial Secretary has introduced these Regulations today, because it means that the Chancellor is extending the grounds of hardship on which post-war credits can be repaid.
Last year, the Chancellor lowered the repayment age to 63 for men and 58 for women, respectively, and also for the repayment of post-war credits to widows whose husbands had held the certificates. That was a step forward. I remember that during the Committee stage of the Income Tax Bill my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby moved an Amendment which I supported and which, I believe, included every one of the hardship Regulations that the Financial Secretary has moved today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton stated that post-war credits to the value of £25 million estimated to be repaid during the past year had not been repaid. Therefore, had the Chancellor last year accepted my hon. Friend's hardship Amendment that amount could have been repaid and this year we could have gone even a step further in the matter of repayment.
These Regulations extend the hardship cases to holders of post-war credits who have been in receipt of sickness benefit for 26 weeks. That is a long period. I had hoped that the Chancellor could have gone further and made it 13 weeks. After all, 26 weeks is six months. In the same way, they extend the hardship cases to holders of post-war credits who have been continuously unemployed for 26 weeks and to persons who are in receipt of a 100 per cent. war disablement or industrial disablement benefit. I am pleased that this year the Chancellor is including these cases in the Regulations for repayment. As I say, it is a step forward and in the right direction.
There have been several tragic cases in my constituency of people holding post-war credits who were not entitled

to repayment under the previous Regulations. Last year, there was the case of a man in receipt of a 100 per cent. disablement benefit and who would never work again needing the repayment of his post-war credits in order to get a small amount of capital, but who was unable to obtain repayment. That was a case which should have been included in last year's Regulations, and I am pleased that it will be included in these Regulations.
Another sad case was that of a man who had been sick and unable to work for two years. Because his wife went to work and the man was not on National Assistance, his post-war credits were not repaid. If the wife had not gone out to work and if the man had been on National Assistance he could have claimed repayment of his post-war credits last year. That, to my mind, is an anomaly which should never have been allowed. Both these cases were, I believe, unfairly left out of last year's Regulations, but the Regulations which the Financial Secretary has moved today will definitely make amends.
Many post-war credits have now been owing for seventeen or eighteen years. One can quite understand the feedings of a person who has been ill for two years and who, because his wife has been going out to work, is not eligible to have them repaid. I hope very much that on hardship grounds we shall be able to proceed even further than we are doing at the moment
I wish to refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby on family hardship. It seems to me that both the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor should give the point prompt attention. If a husband is the holder of post-war credits he is entitled after 26 weeks of sickness or 26 weeks of unemployment to the repayment of those credits. In the same way, if he is in receipt of a 100 per cent. war disablement benefit or industrial disablement benefit he is also entitled to repayment. I take the view that if the wife of such a man is the holder of post-war credit in her own right she, too, should be entitled to their repayment on grounds of family hardship. I trust that the Chancellor will give sympathetic consideration to that point.
There are no further points that I wish to put forward, but before sitting


down I want to support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton, that post-war credits should not be regarded as social benefits. These credits were compulsorily deducted from the wages of men and women during the war, and these persons have been waiting many years for their money. It is true that they will now receive interest, but the interest began only in October, 1959. I hope very much that next year the Chancellor will not only clear up all hardship cases but lower the ages for repayment much below 63 for men and 58 for women.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: I suppose that we ought to be very grateful to the Chancellor for paying back, although very late in the day and almost by way of instalment, some of the debts incurred many years ago, and I suppose that it would be wrong of me not to show a fitting sense of gratitude, although I do not feel very grateful about it. I think that we have been wrong in the way that we have dealt with the matter.
I believe that, because of the rules of order, I am prevented from dealing with the various categories of hardship, but perhaps I might be allowed to say this. I have on a number of occasions written to the Treasury giving details of what I regarded as extreme cases of hardships where repayment ought, in my judgment, to be made. I have often received the reply, "We are very sorry, but they do not come within the categories of hardship and, therefore, repayment cannot be made."
I wish that there were some common-sense attitude about this matter. I wish that there could be some discretion on the part of the Treasury, so that in a fitting case of hardship repayment might be made.

5.2 p.m.

Sir E. Boyle: If I may speak again by leave of the House, I think that it would be only courteous if I replied to hon. Members who have spoken.
The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) asked, first, why we could not have had the regulations in advance of the Budget. The simple answer is that my right hon. Friend realised from the

very earliest weeks of this year that our resources were becoming fully extended and that there was the danger of incipient overstrain of our economy, and, therefore, that any concession that he could make in respect of the economy should be considered along with other possible concessions in the Budget. The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that the expansionist policies of the Government have proved perhaps even more effective in the early months of this year than my right hon. Friend expected when he introduced his Bill and the Regulations last year.
The hon. Member also raised the matter of the shortfall last year. I do not want to weary the House with too many details about why last year's Bill cost less money than we expected—it was in part due to the failure of a number of people to claim their credits—but there is one interesting reason, and an important one, that I think the House should bear in mind. What are inelegantly called by the Revenue "death cases" were extremely difficult to estimate, and an over-estimate may have arisen because in a proportion of cases the relatives who inherited the credits were themselves over 65 or 60 and had already been able to claim repayment in their own right. That is an administrative problem arising from an overlapping of categories which makes estimating and forecasting genuinely difficult.
I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that the fact that we have introduced Regulations at the time of the Budget this year does not in any way commit the Government about when Regulations may be introduced in future years.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) asked two questions which I should like to answer. He raised first, the matter of spinsters, and said that it might be all right for people who were in employment, but what about people who were not in work? He asked how the long-term sick would in those cases be repaid. The sickness category extends to those who have been sick for a continuous period of 26 weeks as in-patients in hospitals or nursing homes. I can assure the hon. Member that it will not be only people who are employed who will be able to benefit from being in this hardship category.

Mr. J. T. Price: I am much obliged for what, the hon. Gentleman said, but how will he secure certification in respect of the many cases of chronic sick people who are lying in bed in their own homes? I have several such cases in my constituency, and their plight is such that I have drawn the matter to the attention of his Department. That is a difficult case to classify properly, but it is just as much a case of hardship as is that of persons who are receiving sickness benefit or National Assistance.

Sir E. Boyle: That is a matter which we shall consider with the Ministry of Health. I shall certainly be in consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health and the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary about it. I want the hon. Member to be assured that we realise the problem, and I believe that, administratively, we shall be able to do a good deal in this respect.
Reference was also made to the man who has lost his certificates. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that what he said is right and that such a man need not worry, because the Inland Revenue will repay when a claim is made without the certificate necessarily being produced. This matter was referred to last year, and is referred to again this year, in the claim form.
I will not develop this point, Mr. Speaker, but I do not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman's point that the rate of compound interest may prove something of an encouragement to Governments to bear this question in mind in future years.

Mr. J. T. Price: It will represent £100 million in twenty years' time.

Sir E. Boyle: We need not indulge in elaborate calculations, but the hon. Gentleman's point is a fair one.
I have a note of the points addressed to me by the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter). There were no special ones to which I need reply now.
The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) said that it was rather monstrous that people had been kept waiting for their money for so long. Let us remember—in a sense I am repeating what I said in my earlier speech—the difficulties which have occurred in our economy because of the very heavy pressure on our resources since the war. We

have had to make room for far more claims on our economy than anybody could ever have guessed at the time when the post-war credits scheme was being devised. I understand why Chancellors faced with problems of inflation, balance of payments, and so on, have felt nervous about adding to the sum total of purchasing power, but I will gladly give the hon. and learned Gentleman this point— and, indeed, emphasise it to the House— that we must all bear in mind that the Government are still in debt, as it were, to some of their citizens to the extent of some hundreds of millions of pounds, and I should like, without making any promise for the future at all, to remind the House that, as we always have done, we still regard the sum total of these postwar credits as an obligation that must never be overlooked.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: There was one point with which I thought the Financial Secretary would deal. I am sorry if I have misunderstood him. I think that I can best deal with it with mentioning a case of a man which came to my knowledge a year or two ago. He was suffering from chronic bronchitis and it was clear that he would never be able to work again. His wife went out to work. So long as she was earning he was ineligible for National Assistance. He was advised by his doctors that he must live in a milder climate than Huddersfield, which, I must admit, has a climate which is not regarded as suitable. His wife was too proud to give up work, an attitude which, I think, is understandable.
If I interpret the Regulations aright, the man will now be able to qualify if the post-war credits are his. However, if they are his wife's, I take it that there will be no chance of his qualifying to obtain the capital necessary to move to another district.

5.8 p.m.

Sir E. Boyle: Perhaps I might answer that point now. The hon. Member for Sowerby raised, quite fairly, the question of the wife, having credits in her own right, of a man who comes within the hardship category. I have taken a note of the hon. Gentleman's point, and I can certainly say, without entering into any commitment, that my right hon. Friend will consider the suggestion carefully.
All I would say to the House—I hope that I am not out of order in making the point—is that one of the difficulties I see is that there could still be representations on behalf of other members of the household, a qualified person such as a sister looking after a sick brother. The matter raises issues which go beyond the case of a husband and wife. A number of hon. Members have referred to this subject, and I can assure them that it will be carefully looked at.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Post-War Credit (Income Tax) Amendment Regulations, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 4th April, be approved.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable effect to be given to an international agreement for the establishment and operation of an International Development Association, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required for making payments on behalf of Her Majesty's Government under the said agreement;
(b) the raising of money under the National Loans Act, 1939, for the purpose of providing sums to be so paid or for replacing sums so paid;
(c) the payment into the Exchequer, and re-issue out of the Consolidated Fund, of any sums received by Her Majesty's Government in pursuance of the said agreement;
(d) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums payable under any notes or other obligations created and issued to the said Association under the said agreement.

Resolution agreed to.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(FINANCIAL PROVISIONS.)

5.12 p.m.

Mr. William Warbey: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 22 and 23 and to insert:
returned to the International Development Association for use by the Association as supplementary resources in accordance with paragraph (a) of section 2 of Article V of the Agreement".
The purpose of the Amendment is clear enough in principle, although for its precise application I shall have to refer to the Articles of Agreement. The International Development Association will be receiving from this country an initial subscription amounting to some £47 million, which presumably will be the equivalent of an undated loan. On this loan we could conceivably be entitled to receive interest, and the purpose of the Amendment is to provide that, in effect, our loan shall be an interest free one or, if interest is actually


paid over to the Exchequer by the Association, the money shall be refunded to the Association for use in accordance with the Agreement.
It is necessary to refer to the actual terms of the Agreement in order to see in what category the funds so made available could be used. On page 14 of the Agreement, Section 2 of Article V provides as follows:
Financing by the Association shall take the form of loans. The Association may, however, provide other financing …
"Other financing" presumably means financing by way of grants or gifts, or possibly technical assistance or other forms of free services. These other forms of financing can be provided in one of two ways
5.15 p.m.
Firstly, they can be provided out of the funds subscribed pursuant to Section 1 of Article III. That Article provides for additions to the initial subscription— either general additions or individual additions. That, as the Economic Secretary pointed out on Second Reading, could only be put into effect by this country by additional legislation. In addition to funds derived by supplementary subscriptions, other funds can be provided, according to Article V
… in special circumstances, out of supplementary resources furnished to the Association, and funds derived therefrom as principal, interest or other charges, if the arrangements under which such resources are furnished expressly authorise such financing.
It is, I am sure, generally agreed by the Committee that we wish to assist the new Association, when it is established, to carry out its essential purposes— namely, to provide economic assistance to under-developed countries on less onerous terms than those of conventional loans, such as are provided by the International Bank. Such a form of financing could take the form of low interest loans, interest-free loans or outright gifts or grants.
Unfortunately, during the past year or two, the rates of interest charged by the International Bank on its loans have risen quite substantially. In the early days they were at rates of 3¾ to 4 per cent. Since last year they have risen to 6 per cent. I regard this as an atrociously high rate of interest to charge on loans to countries which are in great need of economic help, and it constitutes

a very heavy burden for them. On a 20 year loan at 6 per cent. interest, repayment has to be made one and two-thirds times over and the seriousness of this additional burden on the under-developed countries is illustrated by the example of India.
Mr. B. K. Nehru, the Indian Commissioner-General for Economic Affairs, has estimated that for India's third five-year plan external financing of the order of £1,575 million will be required for the purpose of capital goods and equipment. In addition, a further sum of £375 million will be required for payment of external debts.
There is no doubt that for countries in the position of India, the servicing of loans from the International Bank or from other sources can be a very heavy additional burden. That is why it is extremely important that this new organisation shall be in a position to make its loans, as far as possible, free of interest, or at extremely low rates of interest, and, still more, that in certain cases it should be able to make outright gifts and grants.
Under the rather curious constitution of the Association non-loan finance cannot be provided out of the initial subscriptions made by the member countries. That follows from the wording of the Section which I have read out:
Financing by the Association shall take the form of loans.
The executive directors will not be able to provide any other form of financing except those resources provided—in other words, either by additional subscriptions or by the income from interest on loans which they make. Therefore, the effect of this Amendment would be that we would be able to help to provide the Association with supplementary resources from which it could provide help in the form of gifts and grants to countries in need. I hope that this country will give a lead in this direction. If we were to give such a lead, other countries could be persuaded to follow our example. If the richer countries, those listed in Part I of the Schedule, were all to follow our example, the effect would be that a total of about 760 million dollars would be liberated from any liability to pay interest to the member countries.
That sum could be lent in the form of loans at low rates of interest and then the interest so received could be recirculated in the form of gifts and grants to the under-developed countries. I do not claim that a very large amount is involved in this proposal. If we assume—this is purely hypothetical— that the Association charges an average rate of 2½ per cent. on its loans and retains ½ per cent. to cover its own expenses, the amount of interest which would be forgone by this country would amount at the peak, when all the funds were in circulation, to about £1 million a year. If the other richer countries were to follow our example, the total additional funds available to the Association would be about £5 million or £6 million a year for use for grants or gifts.
That would be a small, but nevertheless valuable contribution and additional help to that which we are already giving to the under-developed countries and would establish a very sound principle, that when we are helping our neighbours, we should do so without thought of any financial gain for ourselves.

Major Sir Frank Markham: I have listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) said, but this seems to be an occasion when we should not move unilaterally. In a matter like this, we should move only with the support of other countries contributing to the International Development Association.
I have two short questions. Firstly, what guarantee is there that none of the funds of the Association will be used to pay off loan charges on loans from the International Bank? In short, has the body controlling the Association adequate powers to see that the moneys subscribed definitely go to further development and not to the payment of interest on past development subsidies or advances by the International Bank? Secondly, will papers be put before Parliament showing the detailed accounts of the Association so that from time to time we may have a chance in Parliament to criticise its programme?

Mr. H. A. Marquand: My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) has explained the Amendment so carefully and thoroughly

that it does not need further explanation from me. However, I want to add my support to what he has said.
If there is no technical objection to the Amendment, I hope the Government will consider accepting it, even if they are taking a step in advance of other countries, because someone has to begin with this desirable proposal. I get the force of what the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir. F. Markham) said about one of the subscribing countries not being taken out of step with all the others. However, it would not be a mistake for us, a prominent country in this matter and one of the principal subscribers, to say that we willingly subscribe our £47 million over the five years and that the House of Commons enthusiastically supports the proposal and that the British people regard it as their contribution to this important purpose of a new affiliate of the International Bank, which will be able to lend or supply money on terms easier than those offered by the Bank; that the British people are in favour of that and that their representatives in the House of Commons have unanimously voted for it and that we do not want our money back. That is what the Amendment proposes. Having subscribed our money, we should leave it revolving in the funds of the Association for as long as the Association continues. We do not wish to receive interest, and we see no reason why the Association should make any form of profit to be divided up among its members.
We all know that the principal purpose of the Bill is to provide funds on easier terms than they can be provided from the Bank's resources. The Bank is in this difficulty because it has to sell bonds to raise its income and is, therefore, bound to charge interest on the loans it makes, as it is responsible to its bond holders, but that does not apply to this fund.
If there are substantial supplementary earnings, why should there be provision in the Articles for disposal of the Association's own income, which could include distribution to Member countries? Why dispose of the net income, if there is a net income, during the existence of the Association and before it comes to be wound up? Why should the Association sit on that


income when it could be used for the purpose for which it was originally subscribed? That is the essence of the Amendment, and I hope that even if the Economic Secretary says that it would be inappropriate to introduce the Amendment at the moment, he will at least indicate that the Government accept in principle what we suggest and, with colleague members of the new Association, will seriously consider whether there should be any net income and whether, if there is a net income, it should be distributed to members or used for the purposes for which the Association was established.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I first deal with the two questions of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) and then come to the substantive issues raised by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey).
My hon. and gallant Friend asked first what guarantee there was that none of these funds would be used to pay for loan charges in respect of loans made by the International Bank. The answer is to be found in Article 1, which describes the purposes of the Association. I will not read it all to the Committee, because I dealt with it at some length on Second Reading, but it is there stated that:
The purposes of the Association are to promote economic development, increase productivity and thus raise standards of living in the less-developed areas of the world included within the Association's membership …
It then goes on to particularise.
As I said on Second Reading, the staff dealing with the affairs of the Association will initially, at any rate, be the same staff as that dealing with the affairs of the International Bank. That fact, taken with the expressed statement of the purposes of the Association, should ensure that the funds which are lent by the Association will be used only for the purposes there stated, that is, to promote development in under-developed countries.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: If I may fortify the Economic Secretary's argument, Article V (1, a) says:

The Association shall provide financing to further development in the less-developed areas of the world …
Would not those words, which are fairly categorical, exclude any such repayment as suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Major Sir F. Markaham)?

Mr. Barber: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). I think that is so. That adds to what I said about Article 1.
On the question of reporting, I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the Association will make an annual report which will be public, and which no doubt will be available for consideration by hon. Members of this House.

Sir F. Markham: There is no guarantee that we shall have a chance of considering that report in the House, is there, other than in the usual Question and Answer time?

Mr. Barber: I think my hon. and gallant Friend will understand that it is hardly for me to say at this stage whether in any particular year a debate could be arranged, or even whether my hon. and gallant Friend would wish to have the matter debated after seeing the report. The matter would have to be considered through the usual channels, bearing in mind the other calls on the time of the House. I think that my hon. and gallant Friend will understand that I cannot go further than that.
The hon. Member for Ashfield described Article V of the Articles of Agreement. He rightly pointed out that the initial subscriptions authorised by this Bill, which would be made in pursuance of the Articles of Agreement, could be used only for the purpose of making loans and not for the purpose of making grants. He went on to say that any supplementary resources which were made pursuant to Article V (2, a, ii) could be used for the purpose of other types of financing including grants and gifts and the things that he had in mind.
I am sure that the Committee will not expect me to disclose what transpired during the discussions, in which more than 60 nations were involved, which led up to these draft Articles of Agreement, but it is right that I should tell the Committee that Her Majesty's Government were not opposed in principle to the


making of grants. The fact that agreement was reached in such a short time is something in which we can take some pride. I hope that when the hon. Member for Ashfield hears what I have to say about his Amendment he will ask leave to withdraw it. I assure him that what I have to say is not the result of prejudices on behalf of Her Majesty's Government against aid in the form of grants as opposed to loans.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment, for three main reasons. First, if any further sum is to be made available to the International Development Association, in addition to the initiaal subscription, it is reasonable to provide that the House of Commons should be approached once again in the matter. The Bill has been so drawn that it gives no powers to enter into any obligation the acceptance of which is not a prerequisite of the acceptance of the Articles of Agreement. I make no debating point about that because it is not entirely inconsistent with what the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) said today, but it is fair to point out that during the Second Reading debate he said that he was pleased to have my assurance that if the Government needed money for the purpose of additional subscriptions we would come back to the House. I do not make a big issue of that, but I hope that the Committee will feel, in regard to any sums which may come back and be paid into the Exchequer, that the House should have an opportunity of considering the matter again before they are paid out, as they would have to be according to the Amendment, to supplement the resources of the International Development Association.
The second reason why I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment is that the purpose of this Association, in comparison with the International Bank, is that loans should be made on very much less onerous terms. From the inquiries that I have made, I believe that the terms of loans will be tailored to fit the individual needs of the various countries, and that the sort of figures which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, which he said flowed from loans, and rates of interest on loans made by the International Bank, will not occur in this case.
There is one important aspect about which I should remind the Committee. I am not sure if I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, but I should like to make it clear that amounts paid to the International Development Association by way of interest on loans made by the Association to a less-developed country can, without any authorisation in this Bill, by re-lent by the Association to the same less-developed country or to another less-developed country.
The third reason why I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the Amendment is that, as a practical matter, it is unlikely that we shall be receiving any interest in the near future. The hon. Gentleman himself said that he did not think it would be a very large amount.
For those reasons I hope that the hon. Gentleman, having elicited from me the view of the Government about grants— and I assure him that the Government are not unsympathetic—will feel that it is right and proper to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Jay: Two questions arise out of the Economic Secretary's remarks. He appeared to say that normally, or at any rate fairly often, interest received by the International Development Association on its loans to under-developed countries would not necessarily be used for paying interest back to member-Governments but might be used for relending for purposes of development. I am not clear, and I am not sure whether other hon. Members are, from the point of view of Governments like the United Kingdom Government making these subscriptions, whether normally interest will be paid on the money paid or lent to the Development Association. Perhaps the Economic Secretary could tell us under what conditions interest will be paid to the British Government on these sums. It obviously must be paid on some conditions, because Clause 2 refers to interest paid. Perhaps the Economic Secretary could clear that up.
Secondly, arising out of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey), may I put this to the Economic Secretary? My hon. Friend suggested that we should omit the words in lines 22 to 23 of Clause 2 which refer to the interest received by the Exchequer being applied towards meeting annual charges on the National Debt. My hon.


Friend wishes to substitute words which would involve the returning of these funds to the International Development Association. The Economic Secretary does not want to do that. Would he consider a compromise? Would he consider leaving the Bill in such a form that it would be open to Her Majesty's Government to do either of those things? If they wished, they could use the money for the purpose of paying interest on the National Debt, or, in certain circumstances, as my hon. Friend suggested, they could relend the money to the International Development Association.

Mr. Barber: What I meant to say, and thought I said, was that in fact there is no obligation on the International Development Association to repay to the subscribing countries interest received from the less-developed countries, but this is essentially a matter for the Association. According to the Articles it has the power to relend the interest payments it receives from the less-developed countries.

Mr. Jay: Can we know what the considerations are in which the Association could decide what interest to pay back?

Mr. Barber: I certainly have no information as to considerations the Association might have in mind. The Association is not yet in being. These are only draft Articles of Agreement. This is something which perhaps we shall know more about when we see how the Association functions, but one can get some indication of what is likely to happen from what has happened in regard to the International Bank. As a matter of policy, no dividend has been paid to the member countries by the International Bank, although in the articles of the International Bank, unlike the articles of this new Association, there is provision in specific terms for such payment to be made up to the rate of 2 per cent.
It is perhaps also relevant in this connection, when trying to ascertain whether or not interest will be paid to the subscribing countries, to bear in mind the fact that the intention is for the Association to lend on more lenient terms than does the Bank and it is less likely to have net income for the purpose of paying interest to the subscribing countries.
In reply to the second point, again I put this forward only as one matter

which I think is relevant. We thought it right in drafting this Bill—and thought the House would wish this as this is a new Association—that we should take no power in the Bill to enter into any obligation the acceptance of which was not a prerequisite of the acceptance of the Agreement. Having clarified those two points, I hope the hon. Member will now feel able to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Warbey: The reply by the Economic Secretary is rather disappointing, but he has pointed out that under the Articles of Agreement the Association is not bound to pay out any interest or dividend to subscribing countries. Therefore, there is no entitlement to their receiving it. He said in his earlier reply that he would not like to put the Committee into the position of forgoing some interest to which we were entitled or making additional funds available to the Association without coming to the House and asking for specific approval, but in fact he has invited the House and the Committee to approve of articles which provide no repayment to this country at all. Although he has written into the Bill a provision that interest shall be used towards meeting the annual charges for the National Debt in the form of interest, nevertheless there is no likelihood, he says, that we shall receive any such payment at all.
Therefore, I suggest that it would help us all very much if the hon. Gentleman could go a little further than he has gone already and say that as a matter of principle—and, indeed, of intention— the Government do not desire to have any interest from the International Development Association, that they are making this subscription and do not want anything back from the Association in any form other than if the Association were wound up and the proceeds distributed. If the Economic Secretary felt that he could make that declaration of intention, either now or on Third Reading, I am sure it would help us all and we should be very satisfied.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Barber: I am afraid I cannot give that declaration of intention. As I have said, by virtue of the nature of the loans which are to be made by this new Association, it is unlikely that this country will receive interest from the Association in the course of the next few years, but


I certainly could not give the undertaking for which the hon. Member asked.
It may help him to make up his mind on the point if I tell him that throughout the Articles of Association there are provisions here and there for a return of capital in certain circumstances. It is for this reason that the Government decided that the finance should be provided from below the line. I shall not weary the Committee with the details, but I have them here. Section 2 of Article IV, Sections 4 and 5 of Article VII, and Section 12 of Article VI—which deals with interest—all provide for certain circumstances in which there may be a return of capital or interest to this country.

Mr. Marquand: Although the Economic Secretary has not gone quite so far as my hon. Friend the Member for Ash-field (Mr. Warbey) hoped he would go, having listened to his explanation one cannot feel that we ought to press this Amendment to a Division. Listening to the three points the hon. Gentleman raised, I felt the one which he buttressed with a quotation from myself was—perhaps not surprisingly—the least effective of the three. Of course, in saying I was glad that the Government would come back to the House for more money, I was thinking of new money, a new subscription, and not thinking for a moment of them coming back to ask permission to put back into the Fund any interest which might have derived from that Fund.
His second statement that any interest which the Association might receive as a result of these operations would almost certainly be used by the Association again in new operations was very reassuring. The final statement that he did not in fact expect any interest would be accruing to the Treasury was the most satisfactory of all. Having listened to his careful explanation, I advise my hon. Friend, although he is disappointed at the reception of his last suggestion, to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Warbey: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

POPULATION (STATISTICS) BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The new Clause in the name of the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill)—Annual report—has not been selected by Mr. Speaker, but it may be discussed with the Government new Clause.

New Clause.—(ADDITIONAL MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED IN ANNUAL REPORTS OF REGISTRAR GENERAL AND REGISTRAR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND.)

The general abstracts which under section nineteen of the Registration Service Act, 1953, and section seven of the Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages (Scotland) Act, 1854, are required to be sent annually to the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State respectively and to be laid before Parliament shall include the statistical information compiled—

(a) from particulars furnished to registrars in England and Wales and in Scotland respectively under the Population (Statistics) Act, 1938, on the registration of births, stillbirths and deaths registered in the last preceding year; and
(b) from certificates delivered to registrars in those countries respectively under section eleven of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1953, or, as the case may be, section one of the Registration of Still-Births (Scotland) Act, 1938, on the registration of stillbirths so registered.—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.49 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The object of this new Clause is to secure that the fullest information be laid before Parliament, including new information to be obtained under Clause 2, and also to see that this is put on to a proper statutory basis. The new Clause achieves this object. It is the same, I think, as the object the right hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) and her hon. Friends had in suggesting the new Clause Co which reference has been made.
I pointed out in Committee that there was some complexity of drafting in regard to the Bill. The Government have the advantage of the expert assistance of Parliamentary counsel, and I therefore commend this Clause to the House.
The position at present is that these matters are governed by Section 19 of the Registration Service Act, 1953, which requires a general abstract to be laid before each House of Parliament. Though the authority is in the 1953 Act, the reporting dates back over a hundred years before that, and originates with the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1836, and always, right from the start, I think it has been taken to mean that there should be a full presentation of such statistical information, derived from the registers, as is likely to prove useful, keeping the interests of research very prominently in mind. There is no statutory requirement in respect of the Population (Statistics) Act, 1938, but that information has habitually been given in the reviews under the principle which I have just enunciated.
Coming to the terms of the new Clause, the effect of paragraph (a) is to put on a proper statutory footing the reporting to Parliament of the statistics derived under the procedure of the Population (Statistics) Act, 1938. The effect of paragraph (b) is to deal with the information regarding still-births, and to achieve the reporting of that to Parliament, as expanded by the amendment of Section 11 of the 1953 Act by Clause 2 of the present Bill. This expansion of the basis of statistical information and the reporting thereof will in particular help research and subsequent genetic evaluation.
In order to investigate a genetically determined condition, it is necessary to know all the cases occurring in a population of adequate size, including those born dead. In Scotland, the cause of death of still-births is already recorded. There are only about 2,300 still-births a year in Scotland, and of those only 538 are certified as due to congenital deformity. After birth, nearly 500 per annum are certified as dying from this cause, but these numbers are quite insufficient for research purposes of the kind to which I have referred.
By recording the cause of death of still-births in England and Wales, which we do in Clause 2 of this Bill, it is expected that about 3,800 still-births and 3,400 deaths after birth will be available each year for the study of congenital malformations. With the Scottish figures,

this will give a total of about 8,200 cases a year, which will be enough to allow the necessary research to be undertaken. With these figures, we may hope that in due time we shall be able to determine the proportions and types of congenital abnormalities due to genetic defects.
It will then be possible to go further and investigate what factors are responsible for producing these genetic defects, and to find the proportion of cases due to the workings of genetic defects long present in the race, compared with those due to newly arisen genetic change. Of course, this evaluation is not yet possible. Time is required to enable that to be done. In the present state of knowledge, it is not possible to make a worth-while comment on the significance of the figures obtained for congenital abnormalities, even if the data had been complete for both still and live births. But the research is directed to this end, and the expanded information will assist the research.
If I may now say a word on the mechanics of the reports, the tables relating to the causes of still-birth—this is a Clause 2 matter—will be published in Part I of the annual review; that is to say, the medical tables. Part 2 is entitled "Population Tables", and includes a special series of tables, 20 in all, derived from information obtained under the 1938 Act. Tables concerned with fathers' ages, which are in the Schedule, will appear under the authority of this Bill.
Part 3 of the review is entitled "Commentary", and it includes the comparisons, reviews of trends and explanations of changes. It deals with the statistical significance of trends and comparisons, but is prepared by doctors and statisticians who are themselves expert in the interpretation of medical statistics, and of population and fertility statistics. It is in the commentary part that there will be a comment and explanation, review of trends and so on, of the new information which is authorised in the Bill; that is to say, the statistical part will be set out in the tables and the commentary will come in Part 3, which is the appropriate place for it.
In summary, there are four matters with which we are concerned. There is the


broadening of the base of statistical information, there is the promulgation of this new information, thus spreading further light on the genetic structure of the human population, there is the research by the Medical Research Council on the basis of the above, and further evaluation by the Council in the light of the results of its research. We are broadening the base in Clause 2 and the Schedule, and the Registrar General will be able to do the promulgation and the commentary in the annual reports under the new Clause, and the Medical Research Council will be assisted in its research both by the broadened statistical information and the commentary, and will be able to make its further evaluations in the light of them. All in all, this will be a valuable addition both to our statistical information and to our research and evaluation.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: . I think that it would be a little ungenerous for me not to stand up and thank the Minister wholeheartedly for conceding my point, but I am wondering whether he has given us only a slice or two of bread and not the whole loaf.
What I am particularly worried about is that in his concluding sentence the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that we had broadened the statistical information. I do not want to repeat the speeches that I made in Committee. I realised that he was sympathetic to my point of view, because I can remember one sentence which he used time after time. He said, "Yes, I quite understand that you want the statistics supplied by statisticians, but you want scientists to come along to make the scientific inferences from them," which is precisely what I want. The Minister has said that in the commentary that will be so but then he said that as a result of this, the Medical Research Council will have statistics which will enable it to evaluate the true position in this country regarding the effect of nuclear radiation. That is why I feel that we have not gone far enough.
I am a little surprised that my new Clause has not been called, because it dealt with a different point. I would have been quite happy if the Minister in his annual report had also got together

as many experts as he could to report on this, because, as I said to him, the annual reports in the past, which have been very good annual reports from his Department, have dealt with most of the diseases with which people are very much concerned in this country, particularly those where the etiology is a little suspect, and so on. What I wanted was a yearly report from the Medical Research Council. I felt that that would not be asking too much. However, in our new Clause we asked for a full report in the Minister's annual review. We accepted the Minister's new Clause. When we see the annual report, we shall then be able to see how far it has gone towards satisfying us.
One thing which hangs over the whole world today is the fear of the effects of nuclear radiation on the health, the morbidity and the mortality of the population.
6.0 p.m.
I wanted the Minister to come here and tell us that the Medical Research Council, which was responsible for the first large Report on the Hazards to Man of Nuclear and Allied Radiations, had recognised that this matter was of such prime importance to the whole world that it would give an annual report. I know full well that the Minister cannot direct the Medical Research Council to do anything. The Council makes its own decisions.
I wish to register the fact that we have arrived at a stage when the Medical Research Council has made a report, and not an adverse one. The Council might make an encouraging report every year and say, "We are very glad to say that the strontium rate, which was found to be high in the bones of small children last year, or which was found to be high in milk last year, has now been reduced and, therefore, the apprehensions aroused last year can be dismissed". There is no reason why any report should necessarily be of a depressing character. It could be of an encouraging character.
I use again the analogy which I used upstairs. The Minister held up all his statistics and said to me, "Look at these statistics. Is this not enough for you?" I replied," It is rather like holding up a bunch of X-rays and saying, 'These are X-rays.' However, they are no good with-out a scientist to interpret them." This


afternoon I feel as though the Minister, doing his best under difficult circumstances, has said, "I showed you that bunch of X-rays upstairs. I have my arms full again this afternoon. Does not this satisfy you?" I want the people who interpret these things to say, "This is happening in this area because of such and such a thing."
I cannot press the Minister further on this. We shall have to accept this and wait for the first annual report. I do not ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to write this down, but on the Clean Air Bill when the Minister said that we could have an annual report we asked him if he would use his good offices when the time came for a debate. I will not press him. I merely ask him to bear it in mind. It would make a useful subject for a debate. It would give us an opportunity to air our views
Whenever this subject arises, when it appears that radioactivity has increased in the atmosphere, the only way we can extract more information is by Question and Answer. That is most unsatisfactory. Hon. Members see reports in the papers and table Questions. Mr. Speaker, quite rightly, is always pressing us to hurry on with our supplementaries. When two or three supplementaries are put on any scientific problem, it inevitably evokes groans. When we want to extract the information, we recognise that we must be very quick about it.
I press this point because the Minister will realise how strongly we feel at this time that the fullest information should be available for us all. I am sure that my hon. Friends will accept the offer of the Minister to add this Clause to the Bill. However, I hope that at the end of the year the Minister, as the guardian of public health, will speak very strongly in certain quarters and say, "It is my responsibility to see that the country has this information." As time goes on, perhaps we shall be given even more information than we have been offered in the new Clause.

Mr. William Ross: Before we start thanking the Minister, let us ask him just exactly what we are thanking him for. The additional Clause sounds all very high falutin':
Additional matters to be included in annual reports of Registrar General and Registrar General for Scotland".

Will the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland tell me what we shall get under the new Clause which we are not getting already? Shall we get anything?
I do not ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman that question. I address my question to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, because he will appreciate that what we are doing in the rest of the Bill is to bring the English law more or less into line with that in Scotland. In Scotland we already have information available on this matter. Indeed, we already obtain from the Registrar General for Scotland the information which the Minister now tells us we shall get under the new Clause.
The Minister himself gave the game away. He said that what we shall get under this is full information. Would we not get it without the new Clause? He knows quite well that we get it now and that we have been getting it. The only difference is that we now get it on what he called a "proper statutory basis".

Mr. Walker-Smith: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ross: Yes, those were the Minister's words.

Mr. Walker-Smith: There are two points which I sought to make clear. We are putting on to a proper statutory basis the statistical information already derived under the Population (Statistics) Act. That information is given at present, but we are under no statutory obligation to give it. The information which has previously been given in Scotland will now be given for the first time in England under Clause 2, namely, the causes of still-births. I will answer the hon. Gentleman's question about what Scotland will get out of this. As I have already pointed out, the number of cases from Scotland are not sufficient to enable research and scientific deductions to be made. Therefore, Scotland will get the benefit that there will now be a totality of cases sufficient for research to proceed and evaluation to be made. There is no difference in these things, whether they arise north or south of the River Tweed.

Mr. Ross: I do not doubt that at all. Would we not have got that without the new Clause? What exactly will Scotland get from the new Clause? We would have got it without the Clause We are


getting it in Scotland at the moment without the Clause. The totality of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks comes not from the new Clause but from the rest of the Bill. I have not the slightest doubt that we should have got it already.
I am sorry to press the Minister like this, but he seemed to give us the impression that he had more or less conceded our case and that what was in our new Clause, which is not selected, is contained in his new Clause. He knows quite well that it is not.
The new Clause promises us statistical information, nothing more nor less. The Minister will also provide the commentaries in Part 3 of the Minister of Health's annual report.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is wrong again.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should know that we are not in Committee.

Mr. Walker-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman would prefer to persist in an error, I will not rise to interrupt him. If he wishes to be right in what he is saying to the House, I should tell him that these are not my reports in the sense of being Ministry of Health reports. They are the statutory reports compiled by the Registrar-General, for whom I have Ministerial responsibility, but who is not part of the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Ross: The new Clause says that these reports
are required to be sent annually to the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State respectively and to be laid before Parliament".
We are now saying that they
shall include the statistical information compiled

(a) from particulars furnished to registrars …
(b) from certificates delivered to registrars …".

One source gives the tables of causes. The other source gives the population tables. They are in Part 3 of the commentaries.
The importance of this, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, is that what follows therefrom is that a new and greater amount of data will be available to those interested in research on population trends. The Minister men-

tioned the Medical Research Council's evaluations from the data. What we wanted was that the House and the country should be kept up to date by an annual report giving us the latest stage of evaluation. That is what we wanted and that, with all due respect to the Minister, is what we shall not have.
We are glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has taken our point, but he has not met it. He has deliberately left it to the Medical Research Council, for the reports of which we must keep pressing him, asking when they are coming. It would be far better, now that we have this greater totality of information and data, to have an annual estimate or evaluation of the important trends arising from the information. The Government themselves in past years, including the Joint Under-Secretary of State that was, insisted upon the importance of the matter; they could not bring in the legislation until they had all the information from those who were advising them about the effects and hazards to man of radioactivity, and so forth.
We are surely entitled to have this information in an annual report of some kind. The Minister is giving us data. He is giving us a limited commentary, but we are not to have that specialised evaluation which, in my view, the country needs and which the House hitherto had expected would come under this Bill. I certainly shall not oppose putting on a proper statutory basis information which we are already receiving and which we should have without the new Clause. I regret that the Minister has not gone further.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), I appreciate the courtesy, the ingenuity and the drafting skill which has gone into the endeavours to frame this new Clause, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I am very sad at the Minister's success because I fear that what he has succeeded in doing is to take most of the life out of the proposals which were embodied in the wording of our new Clause. I am sad at the loss of words which gave us the impression that the Minister of Health might be laying before Parliament an annual report with information about trends.
My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend have asked for more evaluation of the statistics, but, of course, there are other trends besides those which were in the minds of those who framed the new Clause. I had hoped that, if the Minister accepted our new Clause and agreed to make a report himself to the House, there might be the possibility of discussing it. I have never yet, however, heard any clamour on Thursday afternoons for a discussion of the annual returns of the Registrar General. There are too many statistics and too few people trying to interpret them and detect trends in them. I had hoped that the new Clause would set a precedent for the Minister reporting annually on some of the trends in society which are important not only to his Ministry but to others.
As a parallel to what has been discussed both upstairs and this afternoon, I will take one example from the very first item in the Schedule to the Bill. Unless we know what is going to be done with the information when we have it, I do not know why we should give the Minister the new Clause or the Bill. It is said in the Schedule, under "Particulars which may be required",
On registration of a birth or still-birth
(a) in all cases the age of the mother.
We are told that there is a trend in the population towards the earlier maturity of children. From time to time, someone seems to notice it. We want information based upon a broad enough sample, with medical advice as to whether it really is definite enough to indicate a pattern and whether it is likely to persist. After that, we want a political assessment of what effect this trend might have on the work not only of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department but of other Departments as well.
If it is true that children are, on the whole, maturing earlier, then the Minister, if he studies the reports and information, may one day find it desirable to tap the shoulder of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education and say, "It is not my business, but the whole of your planning for the education system of this country has gone wrong." We might have got things wrong. We might have decided, years ago, an inappropriate age for children to change

their schools in order to avoid their doing it at a period of emotional disturbance in their lives. We might find that we had, in fact, planned for the change from one school to another to occur just at the moment when emotional disturbance was most likely.
Who will have the courage to face that? How is it to be brought to the notice of Parliament unless we have Ministers who are not only studying trends and accumulating evidence in the form of statistics but evaluating them? My right hon. Friend asked for a scientific evaluation. We need a political evaluation also. I had hoped that the Minister would be a pioneer in the trend, which I think I discern, towards the coordination of the social services and an examination of cases where they are breaking down through lack of cooperation between one Ministry and another. I had hoped that the annual report envisaged in the new Clause would, one day, find its place in an annual social survey.
6.15 p.m.
The House has a Defence White Paper which it discusses before it moves on to the individual Estimates. It has an Economic Survey presented to it once a year before it moves on to Budgets and individual Estimates. Why should it not have a social survey, an analysis of trends interpreted with a political balance by the Government as a whole and by the Minister in charge within the Government of co-ordinating the work of all the welfare Departments? Why should there not be a full-scale debate on such an annual social survey, followed by a succession of debates devoted to the Estimates of the particular Departments in turn? We should then find out, sometimes, how we could save by altering the programmes of some Ministries because the work they were angaged upon had either become no longer necessary or had been taken over by others.
That is a long-term vision which I permitted myself for a brief time to dream might be brought a little nearer to reality by this Clause. I am, therefore, very sorry that the Minister has preferred to retreat and to use the old, accepted method of feeding us all the statistics and none of the judgment through the medium of the Registrar General's annual return instead of


through the dynamic political leadership which we expect from those responsible for our welfare services.

Mr. Ron Ledger: I think that the Minister has made a little progress since the Committee stage. He may not have expected us to agree wholeheartedly with his new Clause or to say that it meets us fully, but perhaps he thought, when introducing it, that it might make us a little happier. The tone of his introduction of it tended to suggest that.
As my hon. Friends have said, the new Clause may very well offer us nothing at all that we have not already. There is, however, the strong possibility that the Minister could give us a good deal under the new Clause. One of the main concerns of my right hon. and hon. Friends has been the effect of nuclear radiation upon births and still-births, and related matters. We wanted to have available a medical interpretation of statistics in this way. We wanted to know to what degree nuclear radiation was affecting the statistics. While we shall not vote against this proposed new Clause, I warn the Minister that we shall be watching these annual reports very carefully to see whether he has accurately interpreted our needs. We shall judge whether the Minister as given us anything when we read the first report and see whether we laymen can intelligently learn something from the statistics.

Mr. Walker-Smith: By the leave of the House, and out of courtesy to the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) and to other hon. Members who have spoken, I should like to make three short points arising out of the observations that they have made.
First, there will be not only statistcs in the Registrar General's annual report or annual review to which the proposed new Clause refers, but, as I have said, also the commentary in the third part of the annual review which will be made by people of medical as well as statistical skill. If I did insufficient justice to the technical expertise of the commentators in Committee I must apologise, because these people are expert not only in the statistical sense but also in the medical

sense. There will be those reports based on the statistical part which will appear in the statistical tables. They will be valuable apart from anything which will come out of the Medical Research Council as such.
As its name suggests, the function of the Medical Research Council is research. It will use these statistics for its research and, on them, will base a further scientific assessment and evaluation of the sort which I think the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) and other hon. Members wish to have. The Medical Research Council, albeit it will not be reporting under this machinery on an annual basis, will continue to present the results of its researches as and when it is useful, possible and valuable so to do. As I have said on another occasion, we shall be having later in the summer an up-to-date assessment by the Council on the whole broad subject dealt with previously in the 1956 Report.
To return to what was said by the right hon. Lady and other hon. Members, as I said in what was meant to be, and I hope was, a helpful intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Kil-marnock (Mr. Ross), we are concerned with the statutory report by the Registrar General, which he makes to the Minister of Health and which, in turn, the Minister of Health lays before Parliament. But I have a dual rôle here, because I am the Minister responsible for the Registrar General in the Parliamentary sense and also, as Minister of Health, I have the other Ministry of Health reports referred to by the right hon. Lady, including the excellent and valuable reports made annually by my Chief Medical Officer. In addition to what we are doing under this proposed new Clause, I am also considering whether I can, through my Chief Medical Officer, provide any more information on this general range of topics in the Ministry of Health report. There is no necessity for legislation for that because it is an administrative matter and, therefore, I did not mention it in moving the new Clause. As I say, however, it is a subject to which I am giving attention.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 3.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO CERTIFICATES OF STILL-BIRTH IN SCOTLAND.)

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, after "1938" to insert:
in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) for the words 'in attendance', in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted the word 'present'.
(2) In the said section one,".
The object of this Amendment, taken with the Amendment in line 24, to leave out "in attendance" and to insert "present", is to remove an inconsistency in wording between paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 1 (2) of the Registration of Still-Births (Scotland) Act, 1938. It will also remove an inconsistency in the Bill between Clause 3, which relates to Scotland, and Clause 2, which relates to England and Wales. These inconsistencies to which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) referred in Committee, relate to the use of the expression
in attendance at a birth
and "present at a birth". Clause 2 substitutes the word "present" for "in attendance" in Section 11 (1, a) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1953, which applies to England and Wales, and thus removes an inconsistency in the 1953 Act.
As drafted, however, Clause 3 did not alter the similar inconsistency in Section 1 (2) of the 1938 Scottish Act. The effect of the Amendment is to substitute "present" for "in attendance" in both places where it occurs, in paragraph (a) in the 1938 Scottish Act and in Clause 3 of the Bill. Thus, the word "present" will be used in all cases in Scotland as well as in all cases in England and Wales.
The reason for this change is that the word "present" carries no possible implication, as the phrase "in attendance" might, that the doctor who is there at the birth must necessarily be the doctor who is ordinarily in attendance on the mother. The use of the word "present" thus obviates any possible ambiguity, but I should like to assure the House that its use will not reduce a doctor's responsibility in any way. What it will prevent, however, is the possibility, which I do not think has ever occurred in practice, of the

certificate being signed by the doctor in attendance on the mother although he was neither present at the birth nor examined the body afterwards.

Mr. Ross: I must express my gratitude to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for seeing that there was an inconsistency here and for his very full explanation. However, do not let us deceive ourselves. It does not mean an awful lot. We started out to bring the English law into line with the Scottish law, and we are now bringing the Scottish law into line with the amended English law. The Joint Under-Secretary of State says that although there has been this discrepancy in the English and Scottish legislation it has never caused any difficulty. The moral is that in future, when there is joint legislation involving amendment of the law, the officials of the Scottish Office should look to see whether they are applying themselves to possible discrepancies in the same way as their English colleagues. It is not often that we slip up, but I think that the Scottish Office slipped up in this case, and I am glad that it is putting things right.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 24, leave out "in attendance" and insert "present".—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Clause 4.—(SHORT TITLE, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT.)

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 2, line 37, at the beginning to insert:
Section one of, and the First Schedule to".

Mr. Speaker: It might be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the next three Amendments, that in the name of the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), in line 37, leave out from "of" to end of line 38 and insert:
 July, nineteen hundred and sixty";
that in the name of the Minister, in line 38, at end add:
and sections two, three and section (Additional matters to be included in annual reports of Registrar General and Registrar General for Scotland) of this Act shall come into force on the first day of October, nineteen hundred and sixty";


and that in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), in line 38, at end add:
in England and Wales and on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and sixty, in Scotland.
We might then have a general discussion on the Minister's first Amendment, which seems to be a paving Amendment.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I have been considering since the Committee stage of the Bill how best I could seek to meet the wish that was then expressed for an advancement in the date of the coming into operation of the Bill. There are really two parts to this question. First, there is the case of the information obtained under the Population (Statistics) Act, 1938—that is to say, the information contained in the Schedule—and, secondly, there is the case of the information obtained about the causes of stillbirth under Clause 2, which is the essential part of the new information which we seek to get under the Bill.
With regard to the first of those matters, the ordinary run of the information, there would be, I fear, a definite disadvantage in introducing new provisions before the end of the calendar year, and that is because we have an annual continuity and comparability already established. The changes in the Schedule, being only marginal, are not such as to upset that. There would, therefore, be a disadvantage in making a break in the annual continuity which would not have any compensatory, or sufficiently compensatory, advantage. Though, therefore, I cannot recommend to the House a change in the date of coming into operation of that part of the Bill, on rereading the Committee stage proceedings I am somewhat consoled at this failure by finding that the concern of hon. Members was entirely with the second point, the new cause of still-birth information, which we are providing under Clause 2.
Having looked at it in that light, I find that we can, in fact, do this by 1st October, and as we can do it I think we should do it. It is not that I expect any great advantage from it in any scientific or statistical sense, because the numbers will be small and the time will be short Nevertheless, as we can do it I think we should do it.
I cannot take the date of 1st July, not because, administratively, I do not think

we could do it—merely from the Departmental point of view, I think we probably could do it—but we have before then to get an appropriate form of certificate which we then have to prescribe in regulations, and in order to get the appropriate form of certificate we should enter into consultations with the medical profession. What I would not want to do, and what I am sure the House would not want me to do, is to skimp the necessary medical consultation or, still less of course, be obliged to omit it altogether. That is the risk that I should run if, not content with advancing the date to 1st October as originally suggested by the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), I were to seek to advance it to 1st July. That is why I have tabled an Amendment giving the date as 1st October.
I hope the Amendment will be acceptable to the House. I think it ought to be because it represents at one and the same time the first thoughts of the Opposition and my own second thoughts, and that is probably the highest common factor of agreement and practicability that we are likely to get.

Dr. Summerskill: I must say that the climate in these discussions has changed from what it was in Committee. I cannot understand why the right hon. and learned Gentleman was so difficult and very prickly to deal with when these suggestions, based on common sense and reason, were made. One would have thought that in the Standing Committee I was suggesting some outrageous revolutionary proposal.
Again, we have a compromise. We are very happy to accept it, and we hope that the whole matter will be expedited.

Mr. Ross: My right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summer-skill)—she represents an English constituency—has expressed herself as satisfied. I wish I could say the same. I wish the representatives of the Scottish office would move in the same direction as the English Minister.
I am very happy that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been able to have second thoughts on this matter. The other day I was reading over the elaborate reasons that he gave us why he could not do anything about it. Still,


we forgive him because he has now accepted our arguments. He says that the difficulties are the new form of certificate and the fact that he had to consult persons. I should not have thought there was any great difficulty about that. After all, we have been dealing with this matter for some time. In Scotland we have the form of certificate. I do not think the English doctors would prove very difficult about accepting something which has been working reasonably well in Scotland. However, the Minister then says that he is changing the matter in Scotland, too. I wonder whether he remembered the words of wisdom which fell from the lips of the Joint Undersecretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Leburn), for they are really good.
When we suggested that October should be the date and pointed out that even with that date we were being generour in respect of delay, the Joint Undersecretary of State for Scotland who usually looks after matters of agriculture gave us the answer and pointed out that Scotland was very much ahead of events. He did not base his argument rejecting our proposed date on anything like calendar convenience. He said:
… I do not base myself on any administrative difficulty of having forms printed. I hope I am not giving anything away if I say that in Scotland we have perhaps beaten the gun, in that forms are, I understand, very nearly ready at this present time.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 22nd March, 1960; c. 20.]
It was because he pointed out that the forms were ready that I changed my Amendment and suggested that we should leave England and Wales alone because of all their difficulties but get the Bill into operation in respect of Scotland as soon as possible, which should be on 1st July.
There is only one thing which is holding up the matter in England and Wales. The Minister says that if only he had had the forms ready and had agreement with the doctors he would have been glad to introduce the Bill even earlier than October. We have the forms in Scotland and, also, we are making relatively few changes in Scotland because we already have this information, because our forms ask for the probable cause and so on.
Therefore, why cannot the House accept the Minister's Amendment for England and Wales and my Amendment for Scotland? Why cannot Scotland keep its lead, administratively, in these matters. In Scotland we have already been asking for the information which is required and it is merely a matter of modifying a form which we are presently using, and we understand that the new form already exists. Why should we hang on from April until 1st January next year? Why cannot we start in Scotland on 1st July this year?
I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary, refreshed from his efforts in the Scottish Grand Committee this morning and looking forward to a rest from mental health, will give us a reasonable answer to these questions.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will reply to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) because the points that he has made are very relevant. We have listened to a speech from the Minister of Health in which he explained why he cannot bring the date forward any earlier than 1st October. The point that my hon. Friend made was that all the arguments which may be quite relevant in the case of England and Wales do not apply to Scotland. In other words, the reasons we have had why the date on which it should come into force should be 1st October do not really apply, and do not make sense, in Scotland.
My hon. Friend has suggested—in fact we have an Amendment down to this effect—that we should leave England and Wales as they are and that the Bill should come into effect on 1st July in Scotland. My hon. Friend has pointed out that there is no reason why that should not happen. We have already been told that the forms are ready.

Mr. Galbraith: indicated dissent.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Apparently his hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State must have got mixed up with the forms for the Price Review and have thought that he was dealing with still-born cattle instead of humans. Now he tells us that the forms are not ready.
We had a case, a short time ago, where forms required in Scotland had to travel between Edinburgh and London very frequently in order to be approved before they could be printed, and something like several weeks passed before the operation was completed.

Mr. Ross: They have to travel between Joint Under-Secretaries as well.

Mr. Willis: That might be so, and it might be that is the case in this instance. We were certainly told that the forms were practically completed. There were apparently no discussions to take place. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman now apparently indicates that that is not so, but how could the forms have been nearly completed if, in fact, the discussions had not taken place? We are now being told something entirely different, and I think that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to tell us what is the position in Scotland. Is it different from what we were told during the Committee stage? Were we in fact not told the correct position at all concerning Scotland? We ought to be told why, if, in fact what we were told in Committee was correct, we cannot bring this Bill into operation on 1st July. The Minister of Health in his speech did not reply to this. If the hon. Gentleman has finished gathering the necessary information, I shall be delighted to sit down and allow him, in his usual very pleasant manner, to tell us why we cannot have it.

Mr. Galbraith: I will try to clear up this difficulty. What my hon. Friend said in Committee was "nearly ready". I think that what he meant was that there was not the same amount of work to do in Scotland as in England, because the change was not as great.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend said:
I hope I am not giving anything away if I say that in Scotland we have perhaps beaten the gun, in that forms are, I understand, very nearly ready at this present time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 22nd March, 1960; c. 20.]
It is not just "nearly ready "but" very nearly ready". "Beating the gun" is the important part.

Mr. Galbraith: I think that that was a sporting metaphor suitable to the Undersecretary of State whose main responsibility is in the field of agriculture.

Although I agree with both hon. Members that the change is not so great in Scotland as it is in England, nevertheless there is a change and it would be difficult to ensure consultations with the doctors and midwives.

Mr. Ross: Nonsense.

Mr. Galbraith: It is all very fine for the hon. Gentleman to say "nonsense". These consultations have not yet taken place and they have to take place. I do not think that they can be completed in time to introduce the scheme in July. Therefore, while I appreciate the anxiety of hon. Gentlemen to get a move on, I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross).

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 38, at end add:
and sections two, three and section (Additional matters to be included in annual reports of Registrar General and Registrar General for Scotland) of this Act shall come into force on the first day of October, nineteen hundred and sixty ".—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Schedule.—(PARTICULARS WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED.")

6.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, to leave out "or" and to insert "including a".
During the Committee stage of the Bill, an Amendment was put down by hon. Members opposite which would have had the effect, had it been accepted, of adding the words "and how many of them are living", relating to the number of children born to the mother, but in subsequent discussion in Committee it transpired that what hon. Members were concerned with was the number of stillbirths born to a particular mother and, at the end of the discussion, I promised that we would think again about the purpose hon. Members had in mind.
We have, in fact, considered this matter in the light of what was said in Committee, and we have put down Amendments in the names of my right hon. and learned Friend and the Secretary of State for Scotland. The purpose of these Amendments, which are, I think, in line with the arguments deployed in Committee, was to make it clear that information may be obtained at the


registration of a birth of the number of previous children who were still-born as well as the number live born.
After the debate in Committee, it was realised that the Bill might with advantage make clear what was to be recorded as to the number of children and that this should be done in such a way that information could be obtained about the number of previous still-born children. This, I think, meets the main point raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) and her hon. Friends in Committee that it should be physically possible to compile statistics of still-births. We agree that it would be useful in giving more information about the factors influencing still-births, and the Amendment will enable the Register General to compile statistics. I think that is what hon. Members had in mind. We feel on consideration that they would be useful, and I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be accepted.

Dr. Summerskill: I expressed pleasure before and surprise. I confess that on this occasion I feel a little like Alice in Wonderland, because in Committee when Amendments of this kind were put forward I intervened six times to press my point, but I am afraid that I was not successful.
I am now very glad to learn that the Minister recognises that this will be a useful addition. I think that probably I did not appreciate fully why there was this resistance. I have come to the conclusion that the reason was that there was perhaps a feeling in the minds of the Minister and his advisers that a woman would feel that it was a little impertinent to ask for this further information.
I think that everyone should feel reassured about this. I do not believe that any woman who has already provided information about her own age, her husband's age, whether she was married before her marriage to the father of the child and how many children she has had already would mind saying whether any of those were still-born or not. Most women when they have a still-born child regard it as purely accidental and do not understand the true significance of it. I think, therefore, that women, far from thinking it impertinent, would be anxious to help the doctor, or whoever was ask-

ing for the information, to have a true picture of their obstetric life. Therefore, we should have no apprehensions about whether a woman would feel a little uncomfortable about providing this extra information.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 12, at end insert:
and how many of them were born alive or were still-born".—[Miss Pitt.]

6.50 p.m.

Miss Pitt: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have had a fair amount of discussion on the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee upstairs and again on the further Amendments, which have invoked discussion on Report. I propose, therefore, to refer only briefly to the main points in moving its Third Reading.
I think I can say that we all agree that it is a useful Bill. It does away with the need for the annual renewal of the Population (Statistics) Act and will thus save us the trouble of considering the matter annually in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. On balance, it reduces slightly the questions to be asked at the registration of births and deaths, which is in itself some slight benefit to members of the public. It will also make possible some improvement in the statistical information produced by the Registrars-General, particularly in relation to still-births in England and Wales.
The Population (Statistics) Act, 1938, was passed to help us to evaluate and make better use of the significance of changes which had been taking place in the birthrate and how these and subsequent changes were likely to affect the future size and age structure of the population. The Bill enables us to go on doing that.
The Bill also has the important object of providing more information that is relevant to medical research, including research on genetic questions, and it is this that has been emphasised by hon. Members who contributed to debate on the earlier stages of the Bill. Interest in genetic studies has perhaps received a new impetus from their relevance to the effects of ionising radiation. We believe that the new information will be valuable to geneticists, but it is in the


nature of studies in human genetics that they must take time to mature. It would therefore be misleading the House if I were to leave any impression that the additional statistics to be obtained will suddenly throw new light on genetic effects from whatever source.
It is not only in relation to genetic studies that the new information about the causes of still-births is expected to be of value. There are many other factors which play a part in the causation of still-births and we hope that the new information will help in finding out more about these other factors as well. The Bill provides for the collection of the information and for the compilation of statistics from it by the Registrars-General. It thus provides some of the raw material needed in population and medical research and we may hope that the research which it encourages will be fruitful.

6.54 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: This has been an interesting Bill, though most of us deplore the reason for its having had to be introduced in the first place. It stems from the Report of the Medical Research Council in 1956 when it asked for further information. Nevertheless, I always welcome statistics because I feel that only adequate statistics can guide one to a true evaluation particularly of social services in a country. We accept statistics here in the most complacent way, but one has only to go to another country, particularly an Eastern country, and ask for the simplest statistics to find very often that they have not been compiled and one gropes one's way through the information available in order to try to evaluate the standards of another country.
We have the statistics now, and I am glad that the Amendments have been made today, particularly the one which brings forward the date of operation. There is need to make as much speed as possible in obtaining this information in order that the scientists can use it. I should like to thank everybody, particularly my hon. Friends who helped to amend the Bill. I am quite sure that the Bill as it goes on to the Statute Book is an infinitely better Bill than it was on Second Reading.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I should like to say a fond farewell to the Bill. [Laughter.] The Parliamentary Secretary may well laugh, but this means a lot to me, because I am now denied an annual opportunity of making a speech on this subject. My right hon. Friend the Member for War-rington (Dr. Summerskill) said that we regretted the reason for the Bill. The reason was that the 1938 Act was due to expire in ten years from that date and, since that time, we have been continuing year after year the collection of what everyone concerned regards as valuable statistics on this rather tenuous basis of renewing the Act annually. It was only in 1957 that we were suddenly informed of the radiation aspects of this matter in a debate in another place.
If in England and Wales we had had this information giving us the greater aggregate totality of statistics which has been available and has been collected in Scotland over the years we would have been in a much better position in the matter of research and evaluation. The Parliamentary Secretary rightly said that it will be some time before we are in a position to better evaluate the situation and to make a progress report. That is because we have left this matter for so long.
We have come to a decision now, and I am glad that we are to have this additional armory of statistics which will enable us properly to study this question which so vitally affects the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington very rightly pointed out that it was brought out in the Report of the Royal Commission on Population that in a country which considers its social advances and social studies so important we have very little information. In so far as the Bill adds to that information in respect of England and Wales and adds something else in the Schedule in respect of Scotland, I certainly welcome it, but I hope that next time we have a Bill like this we shall not have the Scottish Office jumping the gun.
The last thing we did in respect of the Bill was to add an Amendment to what is politely called the First Schedule, although there is only one Schedule, which completely foxed me and caused me to start looking for the second and


the third. This means that the form printed in Scotland will be scrapped. I wonder how much money has been wasted in the Scottish Office over this. I am tempted to put down a Question. At any rate, we welcome the Bill and we are glad that England and Wales are to come up to the standard of information which we in a supposedly taciturn Scotland have been able to acquire about our population.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (LEVY)

7.0 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): I beg to move,
That the Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) Regulations, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House to discuss this Motion together with the next one on the Order Paper:
That the Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) Regulations, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.

Mr. Rodgers: I am glad that we can discuss these two Regulations together, Sir. They are made under Sections 2 and 3 of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1957, and amend the Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) Regulations, 1957, and the Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) Regulations, 1957, respectively. The new Collection Regulations provide that exhibitors showing non-standard films over 16 m.m. in width should pay the levy. This is estimated in a full year to bring some additional £250,000 to the Fund raised on cinema takings in Great Britain for the benefit of British film production.
As a corollary the Distribution Regulations provide that certain British non-standard films of a similar type should be eligible to receive the levy. A film already in prospect, "The Life of Oscar Wilde" to be made in a 70 m.m. version, may, I believe, qualify under this provision. In addition both sets of regulations consolidate the existing regulations on these matters.
Members will recall that at present the levy receives its funds only from the exhibition of the traditional 35 m.m. standard films—to the sum in the year ended October last of £3¾ million. However, as we have all seen over the last five years, the film industry has been successfully experimenting with improved techniques involving the use of firms other than 35 m.m. wide. I refer to techniques such as Cinerama and Todd-AO.
Admittedly the installation of these new techniques involved heavy capital


expenditure for those concerned, and it was considered that in the experimental stage they should not be hampered, as they might have been if exhibitors of these films had then to pay the levy. However, we now think that as far as the levy is concerned the time has come to put the exhibition of these films on a par with the exhibition of standard films.
The conversion of cinemas to these new techniques has now gone almost as far as it seems likely to go. Today in London there are about half-a-dozen cinemas equipped to show these films and in the provinces there are about thirty. Most of the large centres of population which would justify the necessary outlays are therefore now covered. However, if there do remain any cinemas to be converted to these new techniques, the abolition of Entertainments Duty will in future be the material factor governing the venture. The amount of levy exhibitors of non-standard films will be called upon to pay as from 17th April is only about half of the Entertainments Duty they were called upon to pay before 10th April.
In another place particular attention was paid to the position of Cinerama, which is exhibited in only one theatre in this country and which, it is claimed, is a case apart and should be exempted from the levy. It was represented in another place that Cinerama could not expect any benefit from the levy since for technical and economic reasons no Cinerama film is likely to be made in this country, whereas in practice the levy would bear particularly heavily on Cinerama. But scarcity is, I believe, an asset to be prized in the entertainment world, as in other walks of life, and there can be no doubt that Cinerama is a formidable competitor for the general run of exhibitors who have to pay in to the levy.
In having to pay the levy Cinerama is in no different position from other foreign films, it being a principle of the levy that it is paid on the exhibition of all films whatever their origin. Indeed Cinerama is in a privileged position as compared with the general run of exhibitors, in that it is presently exempted from the provisions of the

Quota Acts and is under no obligation to show a prescribed percentage of British films.
Substantial contributions to the levy will be common to all those cinemas in the West End which show non-standard films, whatever the technique used, largely because of the drawing power of these films and the high seat prices. But if a case were to be made for special treatment for these cinemas, what of those in the provinces? Could they not advance a case for special treatment on precisely the opposite grounds, that their shorter runs and lower seat prices, as well as the later date at which these new techniques were installed, mean that they have had less chance of recouping themselves for the costs of installation? The fact is that cinemas which are equipped for these new techniques, whether in the West End or in the provinces, are the largest cinemas, which in present circumstances seem at least as well able as the rest of the trade to bear the standard rate of levy. Indeed it is in fairness to the trade as a whole that we consider these regulations should apply across the board without exception.
It will be seen that the draft collection Regulations lay down that the amount of levy payable may be related either to the Entertainments Duty chargeable or to exemption from Entertainments Duty. Members may therefore ask how these provisions are affected by the abolition of Entertainments Duty. The answer is that for the moment these provisions are not affected. Although the change in Entertainments Duty is to take effect from 10th April, this duty will remain on the Statute Book until it is repealed by the new Finance Act. Clearly, however, new regulations will have to be laid before the Finance Bill becomes law if the position is then to remain unchanged and, as my right hon. Friend said in his Budget speech, this point is already being considered.
The proposals contained in these regulations have been discussed by the Cinematograph Films Council who must, under the terms of the Act of 1957, be consulted by the Board of Trade before regulations are made. These regulations give effect to the Council's recommendations and therefore I hope that the House will give them unqualified support.

7.7 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: On our side of the House we would raise no objection to these draft Regulations. As the Parliamentary Secretary has lucidly explained, they are a logical follow-on to the existing arrangements. It has seemed for quite a while to the exhibitors in this country that it was not fair that theatres which are equipped for the showing of non-standard films should entirely escape making their contribution towards the production fund, because the point of the levy is to provide additional funds for the production of British films.
We are all happy to note that, on the whole and in spite of difficulties in the cinema industry, the production of British films has remained remarkably bouyant. I was discussing this with a producer the other day, and he said. "Do not be too optimistic about that. It is the newcomers who are able to get finance. Those of us who have been in the business a long time find it much more difficult to do so". In any case anyone who knows anything about the industry is aware that shortage of product is one thing which affects the outlook of the industry and which has caused a great deal of concern not merely to producers but also to the exhibitors. Therefore, anything that we can do to help the producers of British films in particular is to be commended.
As the Parliamentary Secretary will know, when it was first proposed to bring the non-standard films within the Regulations there was a great deal of protest from the exhibitors who run the theatres where such films are shown. They emphasised the cost of equipping theatres to show such films, and there was a suggestion at one time that they should be allowed to reckon all their seat prices as having a notional maximum of 5s. a seat. They thought that this would enable them to bring in greater revenue and to recoup themselves for their costs of installation.
There was much discussion and they fought a strong rearguard action. I think that the decision taken by the Government, on the advice of the Cinematograph Films Council, is the right one, namely, that it would not be fair to have a notional maximum price, that the basis already effective for the collection of the levy should remain, and that the

higher priced seats, therefore, should pay the additional amount. It is quite a substantial amount, but I think that it is now within their capacity to pay.
I do not wish to make any special point concerning Cinerama, because that was dealt with adequately in another place. Cinerama is admittedly unique, but, as the Parliamentary Secretary has rightly said, it has certain advantages from that. It is a quite strong competitor of other cinemas in the West End, and, therefore, we would not be justified in exempting Cinerama. It already has exemption from the quota, which in itself is also unique. Therefore, it is only right that it should contribute something towards the British film industry, with which it is in direct competition.
I wonder, however, whether the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us the correct computation of what is likely to be received from Cinerama. There was discussion of whether it was £60,000 or £40,000 per annum. Can the hon. Gentleman also say whether the £250,000 which is expected to be collected under these new Regulations will bring the total collected under the levy this year to anything above the £3 million or whether it will be needed to reach that figure? It would be useful to know what calculation has been made.
The only other point I wish to raise is a small technical one concerning the Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) Regulations, which, I understand, we are permitted to discuss at the same time. It concerns the question of an "eligible film". The levy is distributed to films only if they comply with certain conditions of eligibility. In Regulation 14, one sees that an "eligible film" is
a film which is registered as a British film and as an exhibitors' quota film under Part III of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938".
I have been informed that difficulties have arisen because the Board of Trade sometimes takes a little while to decide whether a film is eligible to be registered. Certain inquiries may have to be made about whether it complies with the conditions for a British film. But if the film is not registered, but nevertheless is shown, as it can be in certain circumstances, the maker of the film is unable to collect his levy for the period during which the film was exhibited but was not registered as a film in the sense in which it is defined in the Regulations.
In the case of an expensive film which, perhaps, is taking good money, although the period is never long, even in a short period some valuable levy may be lost. It would be useful to know whether this matter, which I know has been discussed by the trade with the Department, has now been sorted out. If not, I very much hope that it will be settled before we have the next set of draft Regulations.
It is, perhaps, unfortunate that we have these consolidating Regulations before us tonight at the very moment when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has abolished Entertainments Duty, for which we are all grateful, which, therefore, has altered the technicalities of the matter and means, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that we must have another set of Regulations before the end of July. If this small but important matter which I have raised is not covered, as I do not think it is, in the present Regulations, I hope that it may be dealt within the subsequent Regulations which we are bound to have.
We are happy to think that some further assistance may be given to the production of British films. The theatres which have installed non-standard films are, on the whole, doing very well. "South Pacific", for example, is now well into its second year, if it has not already completed it. Therefore, those who adopted these new techniques and equipment in their theatres were fully justified in doing so.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. J. Rodgers: I thank the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) very much for the welcome she has given to the Regulations and I will try to answer the specific points which she has raised. Her first question concerned the amount that may be received from Cinerama. The Board of Trade figure of £40,000 is purely an estimate. The estimate from Cinerama was £"60,000. We may be wrong. The figure is purely an estimate. If we are wrong, the £250,000 equally must be adjusted upwards or downwards. Neither can I be categoric about whether the collection of £250,000 will bring the levy above £3¾ million. It certainly will not fall below that figure. It might well be raised to £4 million in the coming year as a result of this inclusion of further revenues.

Cinerama, incidentally, is not unique in being exempted from quota. All non-standard films also are exempted from the quota Regulations.
The hon. Lady's last question concerning the eligibility of films is a matter in which legal advice is being taken by the British Film Fund Agency. I assure her that the importance of the point is well taken by the Board of Trade and that within the legal possibilities we are sympathetic to her point of view. I will try to do what I can, although I cannot guarantee to give a completely satisfactory answer before any further Regulations are laid before the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) Regulations, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.

Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) Regulations, 1960 [draft laid before the House, 16th March], approved. —[Mr. J. Rodgers.]

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (TRANSFER OF OFFICERS AND COMPENSATION)

National Health Service (Transfer of Officers and Compensation) (Amendment) Regulations, 1960 [draft laid before the House, 24th March], approved. [Miss— Pitt.]

National Health Service (Transfer of Officers and Compensation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations, 1960 [draft laid before the House, 24th March], approved.—[Mr. Galbraith.]

ROAD TRAFFIC AND ROADS IMPROVEMENT [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session (hereinafter referred to as "the new Act") to facilitate the enforcement and administration of the law relating to road traffic and to vehicles on roads by providing for the punishment without a prosecution of offences in connection with lights or reflectors on vehicles, or with obstruction, waiting, parking and kindred matters, and for the employment of traffic wardens in aid of the police, it is expedient to authorise—

1. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(1) any expenses incurred by the Minister of Transport—

(a) in making grants towards the cost of the provision and maintenance, in the metropolitan police district or the City of London, of off-street parking places;


(b) in placing traffic signs on or near roads in the London Traffic Area;
(c) in exercising default powers in respect of duties with respect to obstructions or traffic signs;
(d) under arrangements entered into by him for the temporary provision of parking accommodation for vehicles in the metropolitan police district or the City of London, elsewhere than on the highway, in respect of the following matters (including his expenditure in making payments to any other person in respect of expenses incurred for those matters by that person), that is to say—

(i) obtaining or making available a site for use as parking accommodation;
(ii) preparing or adapting a site for use as parking accommodation, or restoring it after that use;
(iii) controlling and managing the site during its use as parking accommodation, and meeting any liability arising out of that use or out of anything done in the course of that use;

(e) in executing works for the improvement of a highway in the metropolitan police district or the City of London;

(2) any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under section four of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, 1955, or section two hundred and thirty-six of the Highways Act, 1959, being an increase attributable to any provisions of the new Act enabling the Minister of Transport to make, under subsection (1) of section eight of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, or subsection (1) of section two hundred and thirty-five of the Highways

Act, 1959, grants for the improvement of classified roads in the metropolitan police district or the City of London.
(3) any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under subsection (7) of section ninety of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, being an increase attributable to any provisions of the new Act extending the power of the Minister of Transport to make orders under subsection (5) of section eighty- five of the said Act of 1960;
(4) any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment, being an increase attributable to any provision of the new Act providing that the widening of the carriageway of a highway shall not be treated as being otherwise than an improvement by reason only of the fact that it involves diminution of, or removal of. a footway thereon;
(5)any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under section three of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, 1950. being an increase attributable to any provisions of the new Act relating to the appointment of traffic wardens;
(6)any increase attributable to the new Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland;

2. The payment into the Exchequer of any sums received under or by virtue of the new Act by the Minister of Transport or any other government department and of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable into the Exchequer under any other enactment.

Resolution agreed to.

AGRICULTURE (LIME SUBSIDY)

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Agricultural Lime (Amendment) Scheme, 1960 (S.I., 1960, No. 546), dated 21st March, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th March, be annulled.
Unaccustomed as I am to so moving at this early hour, it nevertheless might meet the convenience of the House if I say at once that I have no intention of asking my hon. Friends to divide on the Motion. One of our difficulties is that we can only raise matters on such a Motion as this by praying.
The purpose of the Scheme, according to the Explanatory Note, is that
The contributions payable under the Agricultural Lime Scheme, 1947, as amended, towards the cost of acquiring, transporting and spreading lime are by this Scheme increased from six tenths to thirteen twentieths of such cost in respect of lime delivered on or after the 1st April, 1960.
In other words, this is increasing the contribution of the taxpayer to 65 per cent. of the price of the lime which is used by the farmer. As, however, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will agree, the matter is not quite as straightforward as that, because if we turn to the Price Review determination we find that it was there stated that the subsidy on lime was at the rate of 60 per cent. for most of the year with an increase to 70 per cent. for a period of seventeen weeks in the summer. The higher seasonal rate has now tended to concentrate too much demand in a limited period. Accordingly, the subsidy for 1960–61 will be at a flat rate of 65 per cent. throughout the year.
The first point I put is, what is actually the extent of the present increase? The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has surely made that calculation. I raise this point particularly, because if we look at the figures for subsidies for this year we see that it is anticipated that the subsidy will fall from £11 million to £10 million.
I welcome the attendance of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). It is noteworthy that his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is not with us. We are now discussing the expendi-

ture of £10 million of the taxpayer's money, and I would have thought that would have attracted the hon. Member for Kidderminster's attention. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) is not with us either. However, I am sure the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely agrees that we should consider this matter seriously, and that is why I welcome his attendance.
It would seem from the figures that I have given that the Government are anticipating a reduction in the consumption of lime this year. This is a matter of importance, as I am sure the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely will agree. The lime subsidy has served a very important purpose in the restoration and preservation of soil fertility. As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows, I am always willing to make comparisons with other countries in order to check our farming policy, and in this regard, and, of course, partly because of the particular circumstances pertaining here, our use of lime bears favourable comparison with that of any other country.
I am therefore concerned about the rate of consumption. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will remember that we debated the lime subsidy last summer. He then estimated that the overall deficiency of lime was 30 million tons, and that the amount of lime required for maintenance was 4 million tons a year. As we narrow the overall deficiency, the greater is the requirement for maintenance. It was on the basis of those figures that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary then estimated that our requirement was 9 million tons for the next six years. It is important, therefore, to pay attention to the Government's estimate of consumption next year because we know that the present annual consumption falls far short of 9 million tons.
I often find it difficult to accept the estimates of the hon. Gentleman's Department. Last year we were discussing the extension of the lime scheme for a further five years. He then gave us his estimate that the requirement was 30 million tons, but we know that previous estimates have been made. In 1937 our use of lime was only 500,000 tons a year and the deficiency was 40 million tons. That, incidentally, is a


dramatic indictment of Tory agricultural policy before the war.
There have been more recent estimates. It would certainly be very discouraging, if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was correct last year, to find that after twenty-one years and a considerable expenditure of public funds we had only reduced the deficiency by one-quarter. Many figures supplied by the hon. Gentleman's Department are suspect. In 1952 it was reliably estimated that the deficiency was 19 million tons. How did it rise to 30 million tons last year? I understand the difficulty of making these estimates, but we should try to get some consistent basis of estimating. We are trying to measure the effect of public finance supporting this industry.
We know that in 1958 it was estimated that the requirement was 7 million tons for seven years. I hope the Joint Parliamentary Secretary realises that he is accountable to the House, and in a case like this we want a reliable estimate so that we can measure the contribution which we properly make to the industry. If we are concerned with that contribution, we are also concerned with the change which has been made this year —taking away the incentive for the increased use of lime during the summer.
I gather that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's argument is that so great has the demand become in summer that it is being increasingly difficult to meet it. The difficulty about the change which he has made is that if the rate of 70 per cent. was an effective incentive, is the reduction in rate of 10 per cent. this year going to be a very real disincentive?
Liming is vitally important to grassland. The Caine Committee supported the summer incentive. I want to be satisfied that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary does not think, or has good reason not to think, that this will not be a great disincentive to the use of lime at a very effective time of the year. Will he also consider whether we should really be satisfied, when we have production supported to the extent of 65 per cent. of the cost of transport and spreading, complacently to accept the argument that the industry cannot, in fact, meet the needs of farming? Is he absolutely satisfied that the industry has taken every step to ensure that the farmers receive the lime when it would be most effective,

or has he just accepted, as his Department have often accepted, things as they are?
I know that this is a temporary subsidy, but it has already operated for twenty-one years and will operate for at least another five. In 1946–47, the subsidy was running at the rate of £2½ million a year. Last year, it was £11 million and this year, if the estimates are right—and I have no reason to suppose that they are —it will be £10 million.
When a subsidy like this is continued for so long, we should know far more about the industry. I have said that I much prefer the accountability in this case to that in the case of fertilisers. It is an absolute disgrace that with fertilisers there are no costings whatever. However, here we have costings and that is a valuable safeguard, including a safeguard to the industry. The industry is entitled to feel more secure against criticism if it is known—and it should be widely known—that there is a system of costing.
However, not long ago the Comptroller and Auditor-General expressed his dissatisfaction that there appeared to be no savings in production costs from improved efficiency and new techniques. Here we have a guaranteed market with a considerable subvention from the taxpayer to support that market now running at 65 per cent. of the price. Unless we have a vigorous and dynamic Ministry, this is not the sort of structure which will get improvements and new techniques which will help to offset cost increases and which one is entitled to expect from an industry which has this considerable security from a considerable subvention.
The Ministry is not able to deal with a problem like this, because it is not equipped to deal with it. That is something which we have to consider when we study generally the support which we are quite properly giving to agriculture. Here we need to have people with businesslike commercial experience to advise us, but the need was believed to be temporary when it was first introduced just before the war. As a result the Scheme was introduced in 1939 and has continued unchanged.
I think that I am right in saying that when we discussed this matter last summer, the Parliamentary Secretary


promised us some sort of inquiry. It may be that I am misinformed, but I have not yet seen any results of that inquiry. We should have those results before deciding to take the steps which were taken in the Price Review.
This is a matter not only of public moneys but of moneys which come out of the Price Review, so that from both the taxpayers' point of view and the farmers' point of view we should be absolutely sure that there is proper accountability and should be satisfied that we have the most efficient way of using this subvention.
When we discussed the matter last year, I said that in a structure such as this there was obviously no drive for keen competitive prices. That is reflected in what the Parliamentary Secretary proposes in the present Scheme. There is the difficulty of meeting consumer demands, and we now get a disincentive to level off that demand. I should have liked to have heard what steps had been taken to meet that demand and whether the Ministry was equipped to consider such action and what action the Government had taken to see that we got keen competition in the industry.
I have no reason to criticise the industry, but on the other hand, I have no reason to feel satisfied. As we all have a considerable interest in the matter, I should be in a position to be satisfied. All I know is that, following the comments of the Comptroller and Auditor General, some inquiry is being held, but I do not know by whom and I do not know whether we may expect to hear something later.
There is a further difficult problem demanding lively intelligence from the Government. With production for a guaranteed market in which one can sell all the lime produced and with subsidies supporting the price to the extent of 65 per cent., there is bound to be a great deal of marginal production, which we know is bound to lead to an extravagant cost formula. That may be unavoidable if we want full production, but it makes the cost formula difficult to operate and also means that there is no drive within the industry to take measures which might otherwise be taken to lower costs.
These factors are the results of Government interference. This is an industry whose present shape and character are determined by the Government. Before we agree to a Scheme like this, we should be satisfied that the Government are alive to the resulting problems and that they can give us satisfactory information and satisfactory assurances, which they have not been able to give so far. In the summer, the Parliamentary Secretary was able to tell us that the price of lime had rather less than doubled over a period which bore satisfactory comparison with other commodities. However, we know that production is 14 times more than it was in 1937, so we come back to the issue raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General—are we satisfied that we have the benefits of this enormous increase in production and in assured markets? Of course, in part this is the same problem which we put to the Parliamentary Secretary the other day about fertilisers generally.
There is a complaint which I have no reason to support, but about which it is right and proper that we should receive an assurance. The hon. Gentleman will remember that in our debate last summer my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) and the then hon. Member for Leominster, Sir Archer Baldwin, whom we very much miss in our debates on agriculture, suggested that in some cases there were grounds for complaint about quality— they were concerned with ground limestone.
The Parliamentary Secretary assured us that there were frequent periodic samplings and that his information gave no ground for such complaints. I put the same question, not because I have any grounds for complaint but because when we are considering a commodity which the taxpayer subsidises to the extent of 65 per cent. we are entitled to ask whether the hon. Gentleman is satisfied that there is sufficient sampling and that we are getting value for money.
I realise that the problems I have raised are extremely difficult. We have the figures provided by O.E.E.C. Incidentally, I wish that O.E.E.C. would present figures in a more comparable form. I mention that because, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, there was some difficulty about the figures for fertilisers.
If we look at the O.E.E.C. figures, and any other figures that we can obtain, we see that we have a good record in the use of lime. However, what we are particularly concerned with is the effect of the subsidy. During the period with which we are concerned other countries have not adopted subsidies to the extent that we have. The Germans, for instance, have a 20 per cent. subsidy and if we look at the comparative figures there is not an absolute case made out for this subsidy at its present rate.
If we look at prices, it would appear, as would be suspected from some of the things that I have said, that there has been a sufficient elimination of competition to lead to an avoidance of the effect that such competition might have had on prices. Although since 1939 there has been a dramatic increase in the consumption of lime, nevertheless over the past few years annual consumption has fluctuated, and we now apparently have the situation where the Joint Parliamentary Secretary expects there to be a decline in its use this year.
Nevertheless, we regard this as probably one of the best production grants. We recognise what the lime industry has done to increase production to meet the enormously increased demand, but we must, however, satisfy ourselves that we are receiving value for money, both absolutely and relatively, because this is money within the Price Review determination, and if it is not used for this purpose it will be used for some other purpose.
I have already expressed the view that the Government have been carried away by production grants without having any clear policy. They have reached the stage where their manoeuvrability has become confined and where they are limited in what they can do about prices. Nevertheless, I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will not for a moment think that we are being unduly hostile in raising these matters. They are fundamental matters to which a good deal of thought must be given. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will assure us that his Department is seized of these matters and is doing what it can—and I hope it will try to equip itself to do what it must—to see that these considerable subventions which affect not only the taxpayer but the

farmer are used to the best purpose and that there is no avoidable waste. If there is avoidable waste, it is borne equally by the taxpayer and the farmer.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: I should like to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary one or two questions about this subsidy, and to put forward a suggestion. As he knows, a Welsh Grand Committee has been set up. If I wanted to bring to the attention of the Welsh Grand Committee any problem in connection with lime I would not be able to do so because there is no reference to lime in Cmnd. 961, Wales and Monmouthshire, Report on Developments and Government Action, 1959. Will he consider including lime, the way that the silo subsidy is included?
I ask that because we are concerned in some parts of the country with the fallout of Strontium 90. Has the spreading of lime in areas of high milk production had any effect on the radioactive fall out? My information is that where rainfall is greater one gets a greater fall out of Strontium 90.
I was glad to find at the week end when the weather was dry that for a while there was a great deal of white cloud about. At first I thought there was a forest fire somewhere but I found out later that it was due to lime being spread
I am glad that the co-operative organisations in my part of the country produce lime. It is interesting to find that they have developed the limestone quarries to a considerable extent. Has the Joint Parliamentary-Secretary any information why there has been an increase in the production of lime by cooperative organisations? I am sorry that I was not able to give notice of these questions. The Welsh Agricultural Society would be glad if the co-operative societies in central Wales undertook to do this kind of work and produced lime at a cheaper rate.
I am sorry to have intervened without notice, but I am anxious that there should be a reference to the lime subsidy in the White Paper so that the Welsh Grand Committee can consider it.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: Because of certain proceedings in the House yesterday I wonder whether we


can discuss what is before the Public Accounts Committee. As a member of that Committee I have to tread very warily. It is no secret that these subsidies have provided the Public Accounts Committee with food for thought for many years.
The Comptroller and Auditor General has often brought to our attention the considerable sums of money that are being spent, not so much by way of complaint, but to see whether we are getting a good return for the money we are spending. Who does the sampling of this lime? I know that this question has been raised on more than one occasion when dealing with fertilisers, and one school of thought considers that if it was the responsibility of the Department to take samples of these fertilisers it would be more readily able to correct any deficiencies.
Suppose under the present arrangements a sample were taken and it was found to be deficient in content. What come-back would the Ministry have to recoup from the supplier any money it might have spent on the sample which proved deficient?

Major H. Legge-Bourke: On a point of order. Is not the hon. Gentleman now raising the whole question of the composition of a compound fertiliser, which goes right outside this Order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said. So far I have not felt that it was my duty to intervene.

Mr. Hoy: I am grateful for your support, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I should have thought that instead of raising such a small point the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) would have been as interested as I am in ensuring that the farmer who orders the lime gets what he pays for. That is what I am asking, whether, when the samples are taken, the Ministry is able to assure the farmer that he is getting what he has paid for. If the Ministry is unable to give that guarantee, how can it recoup itself for any deficiency in the material that is supplied?
Secondly, I should like to direct a question to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, whom we are glad to see with us. This Scheme covers the whole country. I should like to know what was the estimated amount of lime needed in Scotland, how it is being met today and what proportion of this expenditure will be devoted to agriculture in Scotland. These are a few simple, but I suggest, important questions. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to provide answers to them.

7.51 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I am grateful to hon. Members for the points they have raised on this Prayer. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for having made clear that he does not propose to divide the House on this issue. I am also grateful for having been given adequate time to reply on this occasion, which I do not always have.
The hon. Member, in moving the Prayer, reminded us of the fact that in the White Paper we made it quite clear that we were proposing to even out the rate over the year, and therefore, although the Scheme is in the form of providing for 65 per cent. as opposed to 60 per cent., this is not a question of an increase, but of spreading the subsidy over the year. We shall be paying a uniform rate throughout the whole year. The effect of this change on the amount of subsidy will be quite small. On the basis of the tonnage used in the current financial year, about 7,150,000 tons, it would mean an estimated reduction of about £113,000 on the total subsidy bill.
The hon. Member has taken the point that in the estimates from which he quoted we estimated £10 million instead of £11 million, but it is difficult to know exactly what the application of lime will be. Last year we had a very favourable season and were pleased to see a larger amount of lime applied. It was higher than in previous years, but for this year we have estimated at a lower figure. If the same quantity was put on, there would be a reduction of about £113,000 on the total subsidy bill.
We have increased the basic rate to enable the summer subsidy to be withdrawn without affecting the total lime


subsidy more than we can help. The higher rate of subsidy for summer liming has been going on for seven years and has recently been at the rate of 10 per cent. on the basic rate, and has lasted for seventeen weeks each year. It was introduced to encourage liming of grassland and hill land and land inaccessible at other times of the year. The previous pattern of liming activity had been of sharp peaks in the spring and autumn but the continuation of an extra summer subsidy has had a marked effect on the pattern. In 1953, 38 per cent. of the uptake of lime was delivered at the highest summer rate. In 1958 that had risen to 57 per cent. For the financial year just ended the percentage delivered at the summer rate will be just over 60 per cent. That is a steadily rising trend.
If the trend over the last few years should continue this year we would have about two-thirds of the total lime used delivered in the seventeen weeks of the summer period. It is clear that the extra subsidy is not only achieving the object of getting the lime on the land in the summer, but is, we think, tending to make the pendulum swing a little too far in that direction. The advantage of summer liming has been demonstrated and the practice seems to be established so that in the coming season we have decided that there should be no additional subsidy in the summer. I hope we shall not lose some of the advantages which have been achieved over past years, but that we shall avoid some of the difficulties which have been produced, in the last year or two particularly, by this increasing concentration of liming in a short period of the year.
This concentration has resulted in some unemployment both of men and specialised vehicles, and spreading machines, in periods outside the summer. We had the peak period in the summer and this had a disadvantageous effect in other periods. Over-concentration like this which was being built up could become more and more wasteful. The return to a flat rate should secure the economic advantages of a more even level of activity spread over a greater part of the year. As the hon. Member will be aware, following the comments of the Public Accounts Committee last year, we have appointed public accountants to investigate lime costs and this survey is proceeding.
This survey is being undertaken by a very well known firm of accountants and it will soon be completed. We hope it will not take very long. We think most of the costings work is complete and the firm will need time to collate the results. I am glad to give the assurance that this work has been undertaken and the comments of the Public Accounts Committee have been very much borne in mind.
At the same time, the fact that the basic lime subsidy has been increased from 60 per cent. to 65 per cent. will demonstrate to the House that the Government are anxious to encourage farmers to maintain their liming activities. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North gave some figures which reminded us of something I said a year ago. On that occasion I think I said the need was still for 30 million tons. I can only repeat that the best estimate we have is still very similar. The hon. Member was somewhat scathing about some of our figures and estimates, but I ask him to be generous in this matter. It is very difficult to get precise figures in relation to a matter of this sort. Although we naturally take note of his strictures and always endeavour to do better, it is very difficult to get precise figures. The figure I gave last year was a very general one and I cannot change very much from it.
The hon. Member reminded us that on that occasion I said we would need 9 million tons of lime a year for six years to restore the position. I did not indicate that we hoped to get that and we have never reached that figure, but last year, which was a very good year, we got just over 7 million tons. The operation was quite an achievement. I would not vary very much from the figure of 30 million tons as being what is still required, in addition to an annual loss from leaching of about 3½ million tons of calcium carbonate. If we are to replace our annual lime loss and make some headway in reducing overall deficiency, We have to continue at the present rate of 6 million or 7 million tons each year for a considerable number of years.
As I have indicated, I do not think it is practicable to think in terms very much higher, although we are anxious to stimulate as great a quantity as it is reasonably possible to do. As I have


said, in the last year we had over 7 million tons, which we think was a very good figure. Undoubtedly the fine weather helped a great deal in that regard. Undoubtedly, too, it has shown that the farmers realise very much the value of constant liming to maintain improved fertility. If the weather is reasonably favourable this year, we might reach the same figure as in 1959.
I assure the House that we shall watch very closely the effect of withdrawing the summer subsidy. We think the pattern has been established and that many farmers whose land is particularly suitable for summer liming will have recognised the value and will continue the practice. There may be some reduction and that we would welcome to get a more even spread, but, if there were any likelihood of slipping back to the position in which deliveries were concentrated in the spring and autumn, we would certainly look at the matter again. This is a matter in which we have to feel our way and watch very carefully the effect of the subsidies we are operating. We are trying to get the best level. After having given the stimulus, we are making this readjustment.
The hon. Member also asked me if we were thinking of this in terms of a disincentive. My answer is that we are trying to get the same incentive, but to spread it more evenly over the year, and I think that that is probably the best way in which we can help in this regard.
As regards the industry which is supplying this lime, the hon. Member had some comments to make. I have already referred to the costing survey, and to the fact that we hope to get a report on it before very long. As regards the question of the quality of the lime, we have regular testings carried out by our own officials, and, in reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), if there is any fault found, we can reduce the price on which we pay a subsidy, and the farmer has redress. If he is unfairly treated, he can take the matter to court, where he will have the advantage of the reports which we make, so that there is a fairly adequate safeguard here. I would add that suppliers realise that there is an obligation on them, and know that tests are being carried out all the time. By and

large, we have a pretty good story to tell in regard to safeguards for the farmer and the public purse, and I am very happy to give that assurance.
I was glad to note that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North made it quite clear that his party approves in general the policy of this lime subsidy, and that hon. Members opposite approve and welcome the need to stimulate the use of lime to at least the present extent. From the figures which I have given, it is clear that any increase that could be brought about with the present facilities and resources we have would certainly be welcomed by all, and I think that is the view of both sides of the House. I am very glad to know this, because I am quite sure that this is a very important part of our agricultural production grants.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North also made the point that, as he thought, our production grants are at a high percentage, and he seemed to think that this was unplanned. I assure him that we go into these things very carefully indeed in order to help the farmer in every way and we believe that these production grants are a very great help to the farmers. This is not something which has happened by chance, but something which we think is to the general advantage, and it is part of our general farming policy. I am happy to think that this lime subsidy, at any rate, is not a controversial point of our policy, and that it is welcomed on both sides of the House.

Mr. Hoy: May I have a reply to the Scottish questions?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): I am very happy to respond to the request of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy). Perhaps it would be helpful if I tried to put the Scottish position in perspective. The difficulties created by the summer subsidy have not risen quite so acutely in Scotland as in the rest of the country. Spring liming is extensively practised in Scotland, and the incidence of the consumption in March and April has the effect of extending the period of heavy demand to six months. Nevertheless, it is estimated that in 1958–59, some 47 per cent. of Scotland's annual consumption was delivered in the four-month period—the 17-week period of the summer subsidy.
The hon. Member for Leith asked a specific question as to what proportion of the money value went to Scotland, and the figures for 1958–59 were £9,227,000 for the United Kingdom and £2,314,000 for Scotland. I hope that the hon. Member will feel that that answer is satisfactory.

Mr. Willey: rose—

Mr. Godber: Before the hon. Member rises again, may I apologise because I inadvertently failed to reply to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins). I apologise; it was quite an oversight. The hon. Member asked me a question about the Welsh Grand Committee. I am looking forward myself to having an opportunity on some occasion of meeting this very important body, and I have certainly noted the points that he raised with regard to it. I shall welcome the advice that undoubtedly I shall get on the occasion when I dare show myself there.
The hon. Member referred to Strontium 90, and asked whether liming is reducing the intake of Strontium 90. This is a point on which it is very difficult to have precise views, because scientific advice is not wholly unanimous on this point. Undoubtedly, Strontium can take the place of calcium, and we are told by some scientists that calcium is more welcome and more readily absorbed than Strontium 90, but whether additional liming will in fact reduce the intake of Strontium, is a point on which we cannot be absolutely certain. I am grateful to the hon. Member for posing the question, and if I can get anything further on that point, I will let him know. I am not a scientist myself, and it was a rather tricky point with which to deal.
As regards the production of lime by co-operative bodies, I am told that such co-operative lime quarries as are operating have shared in the increased consumption of lime over recent years. In so far as they are competitive, I am sure that they will continue to do so.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Willey: I am sure that we were delighted to hear the Scottish Minister justify his attendance. With regard to the speech of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, one seizes with alacrity any assurance that he will try to do better. Personally, I am much heartened to feel that the Public Accounts Committee is behind me. I was also very satisfied to get an assurance from the hon. Gentleman on the testing of lime for quality. I think it is proper, both in the interests of the farmers and of the industry, that such an assurance should be given. I am very pleased also to hear that an inquiry is proceeding into costing, and I hope that our debate will be of value in expediting the consideration.
I was rather disturbed to ascertain that the Ministry, apparently, now has a weather man, and that his prognostications have to be brought into these calculations. I sincerely hope that he is wrong, because I gather from what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that he is anticipating that we will not have as favourable a summer as last year. I hope, at any rate, that his advice was wrong, and that the pendulum-swinging observer happens to be right. We have no wish to oppose this Scheme; we support this action and we are satisfied with the reply which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has given. I, therefore, beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adoum.—[Mr. Sharpies.]

8.9 p.m.

Mr. Percy Browne: I am very pleased to have this opportunity to raise the case of Messrs. J. Leete and Company of Torrington. This is a firm which has been established for a number of years as specialists in precision-turned parts and gear hobbing. My interest in them arises from "Industry on the Move", and I should like to quote from the beginning of this pamphlet, which was issued when the Distribution of Industry Act, 1958, came into force. It says:
The Treasury have been given power to make loans or grants for purposes likely to provide more work in places where a high rate of unemployment would otherwise be likely to continue.
This is one of the firms which, having read the pamphlet, decided to move. It applied for a grant. It has been established since 1933, and it has been showing reasonable profits. For example, in 1955 it made £17,000 profit, and in 1956 £15,000.
Then, owing to fierce competition for labour with the motor industry in the Coventry area, its profits dropped to approximately £6,500 in 1957 and 1958. However, a comparison of its turnover figures between 1958 and 1959 shows that it was managing to compete with this difficulty. In September, 1958, it had a turnover of just over £9,000. In September, 1959, the turnover was £11,500.
However, in the autumn of 1959 the firm decided to give up the struggle of competing with the large motor industry for the available labour and move to new pastures. It approached the Board of Trade in Birmingham with a view to remaining in the Midland area, but it was persuaded that it would be advantageous, both to itself and to the place to which it went, if it moved to a D.A.T.A.C. area. So it was referred to the D.A.T.A. Committee by way of the Board of Trade in Bristol, and it decided to go to Bideford.
The officials at the Board of Trade in Bristol said that they considered that this was just the type of firm which

would be eligible for help under the Distribution of Industry Act. They said that, as a general rule, the people who came to them for help were those who wished to start a new venture, rather on the lines of the competition which takes place on the television offering £5,000 for the person with the best idea. However, this was a unique occasion when an established firm wished to move lock, stock and barrel into a D.A.T.A.C. area.
The firm officially applied for a grant in October, 1959. It filled out a comprehensive D.A.T.A. Committee questionnaire at the beginning of November. I was told by the Board of Trade in that month that the project had its blessing and that a development certificate had been issued. There was a further letter to the firm in December asking for forward estimates of profit. Quite rightly, the firm put in conservative estimates as it had to train new labour in a completely new site. In December, I again saw my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who confirmed that the Treasury agreed in principle with the move, but that under the 1945 Act it was up to the D.A.T.A. Committee.
At this stage, I should like to thank both my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for the help which they have always given me whilst I have been pursuing this project.
From December until March, nothing was heard. Meanwhile, the firm had had to tell its workpeople that it was going to move, and gradually its business was winding down. When I went to see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to make a plea on Bideford's behalf for inclusion in the new list just before it came out, I mentioned the firm of J. Leete and Co. and that this project was still in the pipeline. I asked that at least the firm's application should be looked at by the Committee before 31st March.
In the event, on about 9th or 10th March the application was looked at by the Committee, and turned down, but no reasons were given why it was turned down. The managing director lodged an appeal, but it was extremely difficult to lodge an appeal if he did not know upon what grounds his original application had been turned down. He also asked


if he could go in person before the Committee, but he did not receive an answer to that request. The next thing he heard was that his appeal had been heard, and rejected. That is a chronological statement of what has happened so far.
I should like now to make a few observations. First, the firm moved into a D.A.T.A.C. area only because it was persuaded to do so by the Board of Trade. A firm will not be persuaded to move into a remote area unless it has some incentive to do so. No attempt was made by the D.A.T.A. Committee to value the plant and machinery belonging to the firm, which was of particular value. If one is to arrive at the true potential of any business, the first thing one should do is value its assets.
It would appear as if the firm's application was turned down because it failed to give a sufficiently happy picture for forward profits. I believe that the Committee said that it did not think that the firm would make a go of it in Bideford, in spite of the fact that it had been doing so in Coventry for a number of years, unless it had future help from the Treasury.
I want to quote a paragraph from the appeal which was made by the managing director:
Surely the important question is not how much money a firm say they will make in the future but how much they have made in the past and how they have spent it. That is the only criterion that should count. Future promises come easily and we could have given you a high estimate as readily as a low one. Our past record … shows that we have never distributed profits but have ploughed it all back into the purchase of machinery. As a consequence we have one of the finest collections of precision automatic machinery in the country and we are asking for little more than the expenses consequent on moving it and re-installing it at Bideford.
What the firm asked for were grants of just under £12,000. These were mainly to cover the physical expenses of moving, and the necessity for training unskilled labour in its new place of business. It would have defeated the object of the exercise if the firm had brought all its skilled labour down from Coventry, because part of the reason for it coming to Bideford was to alleviate the unemployment position there.
Here I wish to quote one more passage from the appeal. The managing director said:

No doubt we could borrow money elsewhere but we do not intend to ask for any loans, the time has gone for that. We ask for the Government grants that are offered to pay initial expenses to set up in business where unemployment exists.
If the reason for the rejection of the application was the lowness of the firm's future profits, it was a doubtful premise, because in the last six years, with capital assets of approximately £115,000, the firm has had an annual turnover of just over £100,000 and a net annual profit of just over £10,000. I am no expert, but I am told by those who should know that these figures show a very reasonable and healthy business.
I turn to the consequences to the Bideford area of the refusal of this grant. We were a scheduled area from January, 1959, until the end of March, 1960, when we were taken off the list under the new Act. This was in spite of the fact that we had an overall decrease in unemployed of only three people between March, 1959, and March, 1960. This firm promised that, given grant aid, it would employ between 70 and 90 people in Bideford and district. It was particularly keen to take and train school leavers. I do not need to tell the House how important this aspect of employment is. In the area where I live, owing to its remoteness, there is no diversity of opportunity, and the more types of work there are available the more likely are we to keep our school leavers in their home district.
Every encouragement was given to the firm by the borough council of Bideford. It connected the main supplies and provided all the facilities, and it let the site at a low rent with an option to purchase at a later date. Now, as a result of the turning down of the application and the appeal for grant aid, this company is forced to consider selling much of its plant in Coventry and operating on a reduced scale. I believe that a golden opportunity to get rid, once and for all, of our chronic high level of unemployment, which stands now, at the last count in March, still at 4·1 per cent., has been lost.
It is a travesty of justice that an application can be turned down with no reason given. Although an appeal is allowed, the appellant has no way of knowing on what grounds he should appeal. It seems strange, also, under


this scheme, that even though the Government give great encouragement to industries to move they are absolutely powerless to say whether industries should have help or not if they do move.
In this case, a project which set out to help to alleviate unemployment has foundered on the questionable accuracy of a forecast of profits. In answer to a Question fairly recently, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary said that, of the 69 places in the South-West which had applied for help under the D.A.T.A.C. scheme, only 18 had been given aid. Yet it would appear that the large public companies can have help to go to places of high unemployment without much difficulty. The British Motor Corporation and Vauxhalls spring to mind. I have nothing against that if it helps to alleviate unemployment on Merseyside, but I hope that my hon. Friend will realise that, in proportion, a small firm coming to Bideford will alleviate as much unemployment as will a big firm going to Merseyside.
I am quite sure that my hon. Friend will say that every case must be judged on its merits, but I hope that I have been able to show that there is merit in this particular case. I ask him to look at it once again.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I was astounded to hear the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) say in his opening remarks that he was grateful to his hon. Friends the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I cannot understand what he is grateful for.

Mr. P. Browne: If the hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have heard me say that under the 1945 Act my hon. Friend has no power to make grants or loans. It is written into the Act that D.A.T.A.C. is the only body which can sanction those grants or loans. I was thanking my hon. Friend because he has, all the time, done his best to help me and to press that Committee to look at this case before the deadline. He has no statutory powers from Parliament to act on his own.

Mr. Bence: The hon. Member's point is that his hon. and right hon. Friends

could not influence D.A.T.A.C. in getting a grant for Messrs. J. Leete & Co. of Coventry to move to Bideford. D.A.T.A.C. decided against the company. I understood from the hon. Gentleman that the firm made a gross profit —I presume it was a gross profit—of £10,000, and he rather suggested that D.A.T.A.C. had thought that that was rather small.

Mr. Browne: I was talking about the profit which it had been making in the past. I was suggesting that D.A.T.A.C. had made its decision on the estimated forward profit. On no occasion since 1945, whichever Government have been in power, has the Treasury overridden a decision made by D.A.T.A.C.
I have tried to suggest that the principle is wrong, that it should be possible for the Government to take into account the social problems involved in a move of this description and that decisions should not be based purely on business financial considerations. That is why I thought that, if I could bring this point up tonight, it might be possible, in the arrangements of the present Board of Trade Advisory Committee, as distinct from D.A.T.A.C, to alter the rules, as it were, in order to achieve that desirable end.

Mr. Bence: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman. He has almost come to the point that I was about to make when I spoke about profits. If an undertaking, particularly one with small profits, is prepared to go to an area of unemployment where, in absorbing some of the unemployment, particularly among young people leaving school, it could do social good, I should think that it would be more to its credit that it was prepared to undertake such a move. The fact that its profits were small would add greatly to the merits of its case. I should have thought that D.A.T.A.C., in the interests of the country as a whole and in the interests of our young people, would have been more ready to make a grant on the basis of small profits rather than on the basis of, perhaps, some fabulous level of profits.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that, of course, the final responsibility under the Act of Parliament lies with the Treasury? That is why D.A.T.A.C. is named as it


is—the Development Area Treasury Advisory Committee. B.O.T.A.C. is the Board of Trade Advisory Committee. It is the Committee that advises the Minister, but the decision whether to give a grant or to make a loan is the decision of the Minister. There is no statutory bar to the Minister doing what he considers to be right.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I think we had better go one at a time. Am I to understand that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) gives way to the Minister?

Mr. Bence: Certainly.

Mr. Barber: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and to the hon. Gentleman. I wish only to make it quite clear —there is no point in beating about the bush—that what the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) said a moment ago is quite wrong. The Treasury has no power whatever to make a grant unless advice is given to that effect by the Committee.

Mr. Edward Short: This matter may well have been in the hands of D.A.T.A.C. in the past, but surely it is now in the hands of the Government. By leaving Bideford off the list of areas under the new Act, the Government are saying that this firm cannot have any assistance. That is precisely what they have done on Tyneside with regard to the motor car industry. By leaving us off the list, they have prevented us getting the motor car industry on Tyneside.

Mr. Bence: I should like to try to develop the theme that I was trying to develop about grants to companies which are prepared to move from the Midlands to areas of heavy unemployment. Here we have a small company, with comparatively small capital for an engineering firm, which is turned down, although it is prepared to go to an area of heavy unemployment.
It seems that it is much less difficult for very large concerns to get money. Through my industrial training, I am used to the large integrated engineering plant. I am used to the big company.

I have never been the supporter of the little man in the past, but I am shocked, after eight years of Conservative Government, that it is becoming increasingly the case that the little man does not get the deal that the big man gets. This is a shock to me. I have always thought that, basically, the Tory Party thinks first of the little man.
We are indebted to the hon. Member for Torrington for raising this matter. We are here concerned with a small firm. We have heard much propaganda over the years to the effect that the great power and prestige of this country has been built by small independent companies and small family businesses. This is not the first case of its kind that we have had. There have been many cases in which small firms have not had the support of the Treasury or of D.A.T.A.C. I wonder whether they will get the support of B.O.T.A.C. Will small engineering enterprises be able to get the support that some of the big companies receive?
We in Scotland will be concerned with this problem. What happens between the Midlands and Bideford may well happen between the Midlands and Scotland and the Midlands and the North-East Coast. One of the things that we in Scotland need is a larger number of small production units with diversified products for the future.

Mr. James Dempsey: With a future.

Mr. Bence: With a future, and for the future. We need small engineering companies which produce consumer durables of all kinds, so that we do not have to be dependent on the huge heavy industrial plants that dominate the industrial scene in Scotland.
When we in Scotland see small firms turned down and when we know that millions of £s are being poured into some of the large-scale enterprises, in the knowledge that we want some of these small feeder or small engineering units in Scotland, we naturally fear that we may be treated in the same way as the people of Bideford.

Mr. Dempsey: We shall.

Mr. Bence: I do not want to be dogmatic in the matter. We shall see what happens in future, but the Scottish intuition of my hon. Friend the Member


for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) tells him emphatically that there is no hope for Scotland if this is the treatment that the great Conservative Party is to give to places like Bideford.
Bideford is symbolic of everything that is adventurous and courageous in English spirit. This is a company which wants to go to Bideford from Coventry, but it has been turned down flat.

Mr. P. Browne: Can the hon. Member put his hand on his heart and say that he had ever heard of Bideford before tonight?

Mr. Bence: Really! I come from South Wales. Anyone who has spent his life in industrial South Wales and who has to work 50 weeks of the year in the frightful mess that the industrialists have made of South Wales would walk to Bideford to get out of that mess. We would go on the steamers across the Channel to Minehead from Cardiff. It is a treat to go to Clovelly, Bideford, Ilfracombe and Watersmeet.

Mr. Browne: I should like to apologise to the hon. Member. I am delighted by what he has said. I hope that he will go on to mention some other names because summer is coming and the holiday trade would welcome it.

Mr. Bence: I hope to go to Bideford this summer. I do not want to tender advice to the hon. Gentleman, but if he wants to attract industry to Bideford I beg him to keep a sharp look-out and to ensure that the industrialists do not make the mess of Bideford that they made of some of our lovely valleys in South Wales. The trend must be watched, because places will be ruined if those people have their own way, as they did in the past. I now live in Scotland and they have made an awful mess of some of the places there.
I hope that we can have assurances tonight that the new Committee advising the Board of Trade and the Minister will appreciate that in the problems, not only in Bideford but in Scotland, something much more is involved than the profitability of the people engaged in the enterprises. This is a big social problem.
When I look at the papers down South and see the advertisements for skilled labour of all kinds, I know very well that few of the young men who are

leaving school in Scotland, and, I dare say, in Bideford as well, and in Barn-staple and Ilfracombe, will have that type of industrial and engineering training that will fit them for some of the jobs that are advertised in the papers in the Midlands and the South.
Last week I had the pleasure of visiting what I should describe as one of the most up-to-date engineering factories in the Midlands. It is only nine years ago that I left industry. That is not a long time. I saw in the factory, however, mechanical processes that were completely revolutionary in comparison with what I was doing nine years ago—and I was in exactly the same type of plant. The changes are so great that is something is not done, and done quickly, in areas like Bideford, in Scotland and on the North-East Coast, we shall turn out young people in these areas who get no training to fit them for the new techniques that are being developed in British industry.
In a shipyard, a boy can be apprenticed as a shipwright or a marine engineer. He may be able to move a little bit beyond that, but he will not be able to move out into the new fields which are being opened up by new technology in the light engineering industry.
With the growth of mass production and mass assembly, there is no hope whatever of dispersing or creating new mass production or mass assembly plants unless there are established in the locality those units which are diversified within themselves or unless there are small units of a diverse character that can sub-contract and produce what we call the "hardware" of the assembled product. This is particularly true concerning the motor car.
Another important point in the redistribution of industry is that extraordinary things have happened in many of the industrial plants that have been developed in the last forty years in the Midlands. I remember the time when, in our factory, we produced only one product. That was thirty-one years ago. That one product was marketed all over the British Commonwealth. That same unit today is engaged in producing parts for typewriters, components for the International Harvester at Kilmarnock, moulds for the Marley Tile Company


between Glasgow and Kirkintilloch, motor car body panels, washing machines, refrigerators and moulds for making nylon stockings. All this diversified production is being done at a motor car plant.
That tendency will increase. It will not become less. If it increases, it will be more and more difficult to establish and diversify over the country the various institutions for the production of consumer durables. Time, therefore, is not on our side. The longer we wait, the more hesitant we are in deciding to redistribute our industrial capacity over the country and, at the same time, to redistribute our population, thinning it out down South and increasing it up North, the more difficult will it be— indeed, it will become almost impossible —to do these things.
This is a social problem; it is not an economic one. These companies, like J. Leete & Co. of Coventry, are not associated together to solve social problems. They are associated to produce goods and services for sale on the market. This Government, and all modern Governments, say that they want to solve this social problem, and quite rightly. It is a social problem which has to be solved because we are creating two nations, one group prosperous and the other living on the edge of poverty. All Governments say that they want to solve this problem. If they want to solve it, they must finance private enterprise to solve it, because it is not the problem of private enterprise. It is the Government's job to solve it and the Government must find the finance to solve it. If Governments will not finance private enterprise to solve this social problem, they must step in and create the means of production and training. That is what it means in the ultimate.
We cannot just stand aside. We have 1,500 boys leaving school in Glasgow and no jobs for them. We have the phenomenon in Scotland that when five boys leave school and look for a job— no doubt there is the same sort of picture in Bideford—there is only one job. One boy gets a decent job that has a future in it and the other four—goodness knows what they will do—are unemployed. There is nothing worse in an affluent society than to have boys and girls of 15 years of age unemployed.

Mr. Harry Randall: Shades of the memory of their fathers.

Mr. Bence: When we were unemployed in the 'thirties we were all unemployed together, so it was not so bad. To pitch young people out into an affluent society with no income and no job is a most dangerous thing in this society in which we live. Therefore, I believe that it is the Government's entire duty.
I think that the hon. Member has shown tonight that the Government have no interest in the small man. They are only interested in the big man. The hon. Member has done a service to the small industrialists in raising this matter. On every occasion when there is an opportunity to create training facilities for young men we should do everything in our power to see that those facilities are provided. I dread to think what the future may be if there is an inadequate number of institutions in any part of the country where some of our young people can be trained, because it will be increasingly difficult for them to earn a living.
My hon. Friends have no illusions about how difficult it is for Britain to earn a living in the modern world. We know very well that to earn a living for our people we must be careful to see that some people do not take too much out of that living. That is why we are on this side of the House, and that is why some day we shall be on the benches opposite.
People in this country are beginning to realise that we will be losing out unless more of our young people are trained in the skill and technology of modern production processes. I feel very grateful to the hon. Member for bringing up this case tonight because I feel sure that so long as this Government, or any other Government, are determined to measure what they will do only on the basis of profitability to the shareholders, whoever they may be, and not to consider the value of an enterprise as a means of exporting goods and services and of getting foreign currency with which to buy imports, as a means of employing young people and training them to use their skill, this problem, in my view, will be insoluble. Unless a new attitude is adopted on this subject we in Scotland will suffer very badly.
There is a glaring case of this before us now. We have a shipbuilding industry in Scotland, and I do not want anybody to remind me that there is one in England. The industry in Scotland seems likely to enter very dark days in the near future. We have a Government which in the last twelve months have brought together the aircraft industry of the country in the Midlands and the South. I do not know whether there is any aircraft industry in Bideford.

Mr. P. Browne: No.

Mr. Bence: Bideford is out of it, just as we are in Scotland. Rolls Royce, the Bristol Aeroplane Company, Handley Page and the rest have been told by the Government, "Now, boys, get together to develop supersonic aircraft and we will see that you get all the money you want." The chairman of Cunard sees this and immediately Cunard gets in and obtains a controlling interest in Eagle Airways, because if it controls that company it will get aeroplanes developed, evolved and constructed on Government money—and aeroplanes compete with the passenger liners.
We have no aircraft industry in Scotland, but we build ships, and now John Brown in my constituency will not merely be building ships but building them to compete with aircraft transport when the aircraft are subsidised, and there is no subsidy for ships. What effect will this have on Scotland?
The Government will find plenty of money to support the big fellows down South—this new monopoly. Hon. Members should not tell me that the two consortia would be competing elements. Not a bit. The only competition between them will be in getting the Government's ear first to secure the most money. People used to build boats in Bideford.

Mr. Browne: They still do.

Mr. Bence: But the industry in Bideford declined because the State got control of the buccaneers, and when the buccaneers went out of business so did Bideford. The buccaneers of today are not going to sponsor that kind of buccaneering. The aircraft manufacturers are far better at the game than the Bideford buccaneers ever were.

Mr. Browne: That is why once again the boat building industry in Bideford is booming.

Mr. Bence: It is booming? The hon. Member should not have said that, because it gives a cue to the Minister. That was a tactical blunder.

Mr. Browne: No, it was not.

Mr. Bence: The hon. Member should have supported me in saying that the Bideford boat building industry was in low water, and that most of the boats were being careened because the buccaneers were gone and were now in the Midlands. I hope that the hon. Member will not be too proud about the high level of boat building in Bideford, because that will not help him in dealing with his hon. and right hon. Friends who so far have not given him anything. That is the only cue they are waiting for.
I could speak much longer, but some of my hon. Friends feel as deeply about this question as I do. They will want to support the hon. Gentleman wholeheartedly because they have industries in their constituencies which are suffering far more than shipbuilding in Scotland or boat building in Bideford. They may have a far stronger case than mine, and I see no reason why they should not take this opportunity to make their case for their towns, where young people become dead end kids in a so-called civilised society. I hope that as a result of this Adjournment debate the Treasury will at least ensure that something is done for places like Bideford and also for Scotland.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I was interested to hear what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) when he was talking about the problems of the small industrialist. I am delighted that he has been converted to the support of the smaller man in wanting to see private enterprise supported by the Government. That is a very good thing. I have always been in favour of the small man getting as many opportunities as possible.
There is perhaps one misconception in the mind of the hon. Gentleman about the training of young people in the West Country when they leave school.


Undoubtedly they do not find opportunities locally, but it is not true to say that they cannot get work. Unfortunately, what happens to a great extent is that since there are many vacancies and opportunities elsewhere in the southern part of England, young men go there. One of our difficulties in the West Country is not the unemployment of our young people but the fact that they leave the West Country and, therefore, the true unemployment picture is concealed.
It is not up to me to try to follow the hon. Gentleman in his peregrinations around England. The case my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) has brought forward tonight underlines two principles about which I am very worried. I, too, have had applications for D.A.T.A.C. help turned down. I, too, have firms in my constituency which have not been told why their applications have been turned down I support my hon. Friend when he says it is monstrous that when a Treasury committee turns down an application for public money there is no case stated to show why it has been turned down. I thought that one of the principles of British justice was that a man should be given a chance to reply to his critics.
One must assume that the reason the Treasury Committee turned down this application was that it thought the firm in question was not a viable prospect for the West Country. If that is so, surely that firm has the right to reply to the accusation of non-viability? That is only right and just. Presumably, this must apply as well to those cases in my constituency which have been turned down.
This brings me to the second point where I go a certain way along the road with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumbartonshire, East, namely, that this is also a social problem. The D.A.T.A.C. scheme was introduced for the social purpose of relieving unemployment by the use of public moneys. However, the hon. Gentleman must be careful not to let his imagination run away with him. I can imagine the difficulty that would arise if the Treasury recommended an outpouring of a great deal of public money to non-viable firms.

Mr. E. G. Willis: What about the tens of millions of pounds

which have been poured away on Blue Streak, which is now to be stopped?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman knows that at the moment when Blue Streak was conceived its possibilities were vital to our national defence.

Mr. Willis: Does the hon. Gentleman know that when Blue Streak was conceived and proceeded with we also knew about Polaris, which seems to be replacing it?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that Blue Streak might have been conceived and manufactured in the West Country, but it was not. I do not concede that when Blue Streak was on the drawing board it was out of date. It was vital for our national defence, and the millions of pounds devoted to it have been used well. As things have progressed and changed Blue Streak has faded slightly into the background and its future is not as bright as it might have been.
That does not get away from the principle that when public money is being used upon the recommendations of D.A.T.A.C. to the Treasury there must be a certain standard whereby it is known that the firms to which the money is to go are not likely to fold up within four or five years' time. Unless the Committee states its reasons for having turned down applications for help, it is impossible for the firms to argue why they think they are capable of becoming viable and, in a five-year period, of making a profit and not folding up.
I ask the Economic Secretary not only to look at the case I have mentioned, which is a glaring example of what has happened elsewhere in the country, but at the same time to instruct the new Committee, if he has that power—I am not sure whether he has or has not— that when it is considering applications it should have very much in mind the social problems, the need for new industries and firms to be established, and the need even for existing firms in unemployment areas to be expanded. The Committee should bear in mind what the social consequences are likely to be if the firms do not receive help. It must realise that although the unemployment figures in such areas may not rise startlingly there is a constant drain of young people away from the countryside


into the urban areas, and no matter in what way one looks at that, it cannot be a good thing.
Consequently, I ask the Economic Secretary, when he looks into this matter, to be as sympathetic as he can and, if he finds it possible, to instruct the new D.A.T.A.C. not only to make known the reasons why it turns down applications but to remember the social reasons for providing employment in the areas concerned, reasons which will in the end surely tip the balance in areas like that represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington and, in fact, the whole West Country, and also in Scotland

Mr. Bence: That is right—in Scotland.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I support what has been said by the hon. Members for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) and Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) about the need for small industries in places like their constituencies, which are adjacent along the Bristol Channel coast.
I feel that when we are considering the needs of places like Bideford and others in my constituency of Fahnouth and Camborne we have to consider what are the businesses, trades or industries of optimum size. They must be of a size related to the population, both men and women, of the district.
In considering Bideford one has to remember that Bideford and Barnstaple have been, as it were, small industrial units of North Devon for centuries. Ever since I have been in this House I have known and heard of unemployment difficulties, particularly in Bideford. We have had unemployment in North Cornwall in the recent past. I was particularly struck by the case of Bideford because I had not quite realised the amount of industry it had.
I appeal to the Economic Secretary to say that help will be given to industries that are prepared to go to places like Bideford and other towns in the West Country. I recall the closing last year, or the year before, of the Delabole slate quarries. It seems that one half of their employees—

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: When the Delabole slate quarries dismissed these people it

was the only case in my constituency in which D.A.T.A.C. agreed to a new industry being established. One was established in 1958 in Delabole to take up the slack of unemployment. That is the sole case, as far as I know.

Mr. Hayman: I am glad to hear that, because I can recall the case of one man in Delabole who was 65. He had worked in the quarries since he was 14, and his father and grandfather had worked there before him. So many of the industries which arose in North Cornwall as a result of the war closed down one after the other. There is a duty on the part of any Government to see, whether or not the area is covered by some wider unit containing 4½ per cent. unemployment or more, that in places like Delabole and Bideford some kind of replacement work is provided when there is unemployment.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North spoke of training facilities for young people. Something came to my knowledge a short time ago and I ought to speak out about it. The Cornwall Education Committee very adequately provides for the training of youngsters at the Cornwall Technical College. Girls in particular who pass the examination are admitted there to the commercial course. They then qualify, but when they come out there are no jobs for them. I have heard of cases where employers in offices have been offering 15s. to 25s. a week for young girls who have studied perhaps for a couple of years at the college, and are fully qualified. That sort of thing should not continue.
I suggest to the Economic Secretary that tomorrow his Department should place before him the Western Morning News, a Plymouth newspaper, of today. In it he will find a report of an emigrant ship registered in Genoa but engaged in the traffic of emigrants for Australia, which disembarked some passengers at Plymouth and then came to Falmouth for repairs. People intending to go on the return trip to Australia were unable to embark at Falmouth and had to go to Plymouth, because the Customs were unable to provide the necessary facilities at Falmouth, although those facilities had been provided in a somewhat similar case a short time before.
We have high unemployment in Falmouth and in the ship-repairing yard


it is sometimes very high, indeed. If it is possible for passenger ships to be brought to Falmouth for repair, that should be done. The Economic Secretary may not be aware that there is a dry dock at Falmouth capable of dealing with ships of up to 80,000 tons. There would be some hope for Falmouth's future prosperity if vessels of that kind could be sent to Falmouth for repair and if the necessary Customs facilities could be provided when required.
I feel very strongly about this issue of unemployment, because West Cornwall suffered severely from unemployment during the inter-war years. Even now, the whole of my constituency is a D.A.T.A.C. or B.O.T.A.C. area, or whatever is the current term. I beg the hon. Gentleman seriously to consider the type of firm which can provide work anywhere. We do not want the big units. We want small units which are viable and which can provide employment for adults, including women, and enable youngsters to have proper training.
About three years ago, I visited an electric power station between Bideford and Barnstaple and I found that it was impossible to provide proper technical training for apprentices and other young people in the power station because there was almost no other industry in the area to keep up the numbers in the classes. For all those reasons, I hope that the Economic Secretary will study this issue sympathetically.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Charles Longhlin: The debate is a little unreal, but even so it has served a useful purpose. I know that the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) will feel that some of the points which he made in initiating the debate will have been stolen. However, no firm or area can be assisted with the transfer or expansion of factories or industries unless the area to which the factory is to be transferred, or in which it is to be expanded, is included in the scheduled list of development districts under the Local Employment Act.
No matter what the desire of the Economic Secretary and no matter how far we can convince him that additional consideration should be given in a certain case, it is not possible for him to give that consideration or assistance

other than by persuading his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to put Bideford—in this case-on the list of development districts.
In initiating this debate, the hon. Gentleman has spotlighted one of the problems that face many areas which are similar to Bideford, and which, as far as I can see, have little chance of solving their employment problems, or the problem of the eventual emigration of their younger people.
In my area, in the Forest of Dean, I have a very serious pending unemployment problem. The closure of the three remaining pits in the area will produce an unemployment figure of 12 to 14 per cent. It will produce a figure at least 12·8 per cent. unemployment without taking into consideration the natural growth of our labour force.
At present, we have in the area one or two very small factories on the trading estates. They are in the early stages of their development. If they are to expand as they ought to and thus have some social value, they must receive from the Government the type of assistance which the hon. Gentleman has asked should be given to Bideford. But the factories in my area cannot get that assistance.
One firm—and it is the only firm in the country doing this—has introduced the moulding of what we now know to be chipboard, a combination of sawdust and resin which hitherto was pressed into long lengths. At present, it employs about thirty people. If it received assistance under the Local Employment Act, it would be able to expand within two years to employ 130 people and expand still further in the years ahead.
The expansion of that factory would be of enormous benefit to my constituency, but I know that it is no good going to the Economic Secretary or to the President of the Board of Trade and saying, "Here is a situation in which we feel that the social value is such that assistance ought to be given to this company". We just cannot get the President of the Board of Trade to include the Forest of Dean on the list.

Mr. Bence: Speech House is dumb on this. The town of Speech House is not included in this because it is not scheduled.

Mr. Loughlin: The President of the Board of Trade will not include the Forest of Dean on the list of Development Areas. One of the reasons why we have been turned down is that there is still this concept that not only must unemployment be at a high level, or imminent, but that it must be persistent. Having listened to many of the debates, and taken part in the proceedings in Committee, on the Local Employment Bill, I thought that we had got away from the concept that unemployment had to be persistent if one had a situation in which it was reasonable to assume that within a reasonable period of time unemployment was inevitable.
I understand that even though one of the pits in my constituency is closing in September, which will produce a situation of 5½4 per cent. unemployment in the area, no assistance will be given to the Forest of Dean until such time as the President of the Board of Trade determines that unemployment is persistent there. I made further inquiries about this and asked the Parliamentary Secretary what constituted persistence in the context in which he had used the term. He said that ten months would be persistent unemployment. Not only can a small firm not be assisted even though there is social value in that firm receiving help, but when there is unemployment in an area, even if it is more than 4½6 per cent. and expected to be 5½4 per cent., there has to be persistency after that.
All the blandishments in the world— and it is alleged that I kissed the Blarney Stone years ago—would not move the Parliamentary Secretary from his attitude even though it is accepted that once the first pit closes the water situation in the Forest of Dean will make it necessary for other pits to close. In one pit we pump 111 tons of water for every ton of coal mined. The closure of the second pit would mean that two other pits would almost overnight produce the situation of 12½8 per cent. unemployment. Even then there is no attempt by the President of the Board of Trade to include the Forest of Dean in the development area list.

Mr. Hayman: Exactly the same happened a generation ago in Camborne. When one tin mine closed, it caused the flooding of the remainder of the tin mines.

Mr. Loughlin: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. What is the reason for the adamant attitude of the President of the Board of Trade? What is the reason for his refusal to give assistance to this firm? It is possible that the reason was the same as was given to me about the Forest of Dean. That was a reason which had been worked out before our deputation went to the Board of Trade. A map had been looked at and train schedules worked out to show that from Lydney to Llanwern, where the new strip mill is to be, was perhaps thirty-eight miles. It took forty-five minutes on the train and the Board of Trade said that was not too long a time for people to be travelling. In London people travelled forty or forty-five miles and thought nothing of it. In the city of Birmingham, they travel from one side of the city to another every day, and again they think nothing of it. There is validity up to a point in the argument about cities like London and Birmingham.
I would argue that in an age when the whole emphasis is towards decreasing the working week, when the normal technological development in industry is such as to ensure that there can be a shorter working week, there is no justification for adding travelling time to a working person's daily stint. The task of the Government is to bring the work to the people, but let us forget that argument for a moment. Perhaps the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will convey these remarks to the Minister, because if it applies to my constituency it may well apply equally to other constituencies which have been spot-lighted in this debate. If all the people lived in Lydney who were travelling to South Wales it would not be too bad, but when we have a multiplicity of small townships and villages stretching from three to eight, or nine or ten miles away from Lydney, where there is no modern bus service and where the buses do not begin until seven o'clock in the morning, and are perhaps hourly, because on circular routes it means that those men who are to be confronted with travelling forty-five minutes in the train to get to work will have to get up at five o'clock in the morning to walk from their homes to Lydney to enable them to catch the train.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: I am sure my hon. Friend would appreciate that the man who drove the train would have to get up two hours before that.

Mr. Loughlin: I am sure that my hon. Friend will also accept and appreciate that the train driver will come home after a shorter working day than those people who were travelling forty-five minutes in the morning and again in the evening, in addition to an ordinary working day.
In addition to spot-lighting the problem of my own constituency, what, above all, I have sought to do, and I hope that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will be seized of this point, is to point out the dilemma which faces him in connection with this particular firm and its proposed transfer. It is that he has no power to assist in such a transfer at the present time. Irrespective of the circumstances, he has no power at all, nor has the President of the Board of Trade any power, under the terms of the Local Employment Act. This is the weakness of that Act, and it means that there are many areas and small communities which have one of two choices before them. Because their situation is not such that the persons representing them are able to persuade the President of the Board of Trade to include them in a list of development districts, they have one of two choices.
It means either that they cease to exist or that there is emigration from one part of the country to another. If the provisions of the Act allowed the President of the Board of Trade or the Government to say that, in addition to its existing provisions—perhaps it could be amended—it would be possible for an advisory committee to recommend assistance to be given in specific cases, either for areas or for firms, there would be a possibility of assisting the firm to which the hon. Member for Torrington referred and firms in areas to which other hon. Members have referred.
I do not want to convey the impression to the House that I have given up the ghost as regards the Forest of Dean being included in the list of development areas. I should tell the President of the Board of Trade that I have not started yet.

Mr. Bence: The right hon. Gentleman is not here.

Mr. Loughlin: His hon. Friend might convey such an impression to him. I have not started yet. Unless he gives me some assurance the next time I see him, as I will shortly—I shall at any rate see his Parliamentary Secretary—I shall pester the House, at Question Time and every conceivable opportunity, to see that the Forest of Dean is given the justice it deserves.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) must be very surprised indeed that what he thought would be a nice quiet probing little Adjournment debate has aroused such a considerable amount of interest among Opposition Members, even though it has not aroused any great interest amongst his own hon. Friends. There is a simple explanation for that. What has happened in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has happened in practically every other constituency which knows unemployment. Indeed, it is what we fear will happen, certainly in Scotland—

Mr. Short: And the North of England.

Mr. Ross: And the North of England, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) will allow me to cite Scotland for a moment. In Scotland we have over 90,000 unemployed, and nearly 30,000 of them are not in listed localities.
Has it struck any of my hon. Friends, as it has struck me, that it is very strange that the person who is to answer this debate is the Economic Secretary? That is important from this point of view. It was agreed by the hon. Member for Torrington, and supported by every other speaker, that Bideford is not on the list published under the new Act. Not being on the list, it is not eligible for any help. What we are dealing with tonight is a piece of history. The Economic Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but the administrative decision in this case was taken in March before the Local Employment Bill became an Act.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): That is precisely the reason why I am here and


not somebody from the Board of Trade. My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) was kind enough to tell me, before he raised this subject on the Adjournment tonight, that it concerned the application of J. Leete and Co., through D.A.T.A.C. to the Treasury, which application was under the 1958 Act, for which the Treasury was responsible.

Mr. Ross: In other words, I am right. What we are dealing with is a piece of administrative history. The decision was taken when D.A.T.A.C. was in operation under the 1958 Act and before the area with which the hon. Member for Torrington is concerned was removed from the list.

Mr. Barber: The hon. Gentleman is under a slight misunderstanding. It is obviously for my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington, having been granted the opportunity to raise a subject on the Adjournment, to decide what subject he wants to raise. He has raised a subject which I quite follow that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) considers from his point of view to be merely a little piece of history, but it is a matter of importance to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Ross: It is very much more important even than the hon. Gentleman thinks. We have been arguing tonight that we cannot have any help unless we are on the list, but what we are really dealing with is that, even when we are on the list, we do not receive any help.
I do not underestimate the importance of the matter. Here was an area which was put on the D.A.T.A.C. list, I think the hon. Member for Torrington said, in October. Who was the Member for Torrington then? It was a member of the Liberal Party, I think. Where is the Liberal Party tonight? Has it lost its interest in Torrington? If we talk long enough, it might even put in an appearance.
We can understand the feelings of the hon. Member. No doubt, when he was fighting the General Election, he felt happy for his party because it was doing something and he could say to himself, "We are coming on the D.A.T.A.C. list and we shall get some help". Then, as soon as the election is over, he is faced with the awful business of coming here to support a Bill when he does not even

know whether Torrington or any other part of the country will be on the list and, moreover, as soon as the Bill leaves the House, Bideford is taken off the list. We see the warning here. It may well be that, before one can have something, one must go on the list; but, once one is on the list, that is no guarantee of anything at all.
We have seen some ploys on the other side of the House related to some mystic thing called Government expenditure. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinch-ingbrooke) and a few others of their grisly gang have been concerned about Government expenditure, not on the Army, the Navy or the Air Force—that is the sacred £1,600 million—but only on things related to what they call the spending Departments, the social services.
There was a leading article in The Times recently on this very subject. If I remember it aright, the final paragraph said that it was not only in the supply Departments but on steel and on unemployment and development areas that ruthless intervention was required to cut expenditure. I wonder whether this decision taken in the month of March was taken because the Chancellor has seen the red light and he thought that expenditure must be cut to satisfy the demands of Kidderminster or Dorset. It is a possibility.
We are concerned about this in Scotland, in the areas which are not listed as well as in the areas which are listed. The hon. Member for Torrington has told us about a company which was prepared to move into an area where the Government themselves had said that unemployment was so bad that the special benefits of D.A.T.A.C. cover under the 1958 Act should be applied. It is not right to suggest that this is all a matter for the discretion of the Committee. We understand from the hon. Member that it was only under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, that Bideford came on the list.
The Act says quite clearly that it extends the powers of the Treasury to make grants or loans in respect of undertakings outwith the old development areas, and then it provides—this is the condition for grant or loan—
 if the Board "—


that is to say, the Board of Trade—
are satisfied that the purpose for which the grant or loan is required is a purpose likely to reduce or contribute to the reduction of the rate of unemployment ".
This Committee is nothing more than an advisory committee.

Mr. Barber: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ross: It is no use the hon. Member shaking his head. This was how it worked from 1945 to 1951, but how it is being administered now is something about which every hon. Member on this side of the House with unemployment in his constituency, whether it is on or off the list, is suspicious.

Mr. P. Browne: I have taken the trouble to discover the facts. On no occasion since 1945 has the Treasury gone against a decision made by this Committee. Section 4 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, reads:
The Treasury may, in accordance with recommendations of an advisory committee appointed by them, agree with any person carrying on, or proposing to carry on, in a development area an industrial undertaking …

Mr. Ross: That Committee is appointed by the Government. It works under terms of reference laid down by the Government. From that administrative point of view, the Treasury has power over it. If the Treasury is tough in its terms of reference, the Committee is tough.
Since 1945 up to last year, we have seen changes in emphasis and we have certainly seen changes from 1951 in the way that this Act has been administered. The whole matter depends entirely on the nature of the control that the Government are prepared to wield in the granting of industrial development certificates.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: The hon. Member came into the House, I think, at the same time as I did, in 1945.

Mr. Ross: No.

Mr. Marshall: Can the hon. Member give one instance since 1945 in which the Committee has turned down an application? There are many questions of this kind to which I should like to refer if I catch Mr. Speaker's eye. In no case has the Committee turned down

a proposition and then later has the Treasury reversed the decision when appeal has been made to it.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member must know that Ministers refuse to give information on individual cases. He knows that he is asking a question to which no one can give the answer. There are many cases in which we have managed to make the Committee change its mind through our intervention with Ministers, not on the Floor of the House but often in discussion with them.
The Government have established, more or less, an arbitrary Committee against which it is useless to appeal. Not only is the Committee's decision final but it is not prepared to give reasons why it has turned down any application. This is the matter on which we argued during the passage of the Local Employment Bill. First, we in the House of Commons handed over powers to the Board of Trade and then the Board of Trade handed them over to a Committee behind which it is prepared to shelter in relation to what it does and does not do.
There is considerable concern in this matter. I can appreciate the feelings of the hon. Member for Torrington. He has our sympathy. He was not here when I spoke about what his feelings must have been when he was fighting the last election in an area which was previously on the list and then, as soon as he comes here, an Act is put on the Statute Book to deny his constituency any possibility of assistance. This power behind the Treasury is terrifying, particularly in view of what the Chancellor said the other day. Already we see warning signs. The squeeze will come. How do we know that the terms of reference of the Committee have not been tightened so that what has happened in this instance may well be part of a new credit squeeze? It is happening not only at Torrington. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) tells me it has happened also at Coatbridge.
That underlines the fact that this so-called new flexible instrument is not an instrument of any great flexibility in being able properly to help. According to the hon. Member for Torrington, from the time that the area was made a D.A.T.A.C. area—a special help area—


until the time it was taken off the list, there was a reduction in unemployment of exactly three. Either the area should never have been put on the list or, having been put on, it should never have been taken off.
I represent an area where, last month, the unemployment figure was 7 per cent. with over 1,200 people unemployed. This month, the figure certainly has gone down to about 5·4 per cent., but there are still 1,000 people unemployed. Many of them have been unemployed, not for a week or for a month, but for over six months. We are faced with the same position for our school-leavers. They cannot sit waiting until they are put on the list and so they find work in the Midlands and down here in London.
I hope that the hon. Member for Torrington will continue to join us in these protestations about the administrative folly of the Government in the use of their powers for the areas for which they have them, and to demonstrate that the powers are inadequate in respect of areas which are left out but which certainly need help.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will find, strangely enough, that I agree with the principle underlying his speech, although I do not agree with the details to which he has referred. The point I wish to put to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is one of substance. If the House will bear with me for a few moments, I should like to develop my reasons for making it.
One must remember that when D.A.T.A.C. first started the country's greatest difficulty was acute inflation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of that time understood that, and although I as an hon. Member on the Opposition side did not agree with all the different things he did to try to combat it, there was no doubt that he understood the position which was developing. Consequently, tonight I make no charge against that former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has now left this House, about the particular arrangement he made within what I call the pattern of D.A.T.A.C.
The pattern at that time was a quite simple one. It was to help different

industries in different parts of the United Kingdom where there might well be difficulties and unemployment. But so that hon. Members and others could not continually go back to argue individual cases with the Committee that was set up, whatever the Committe decided— although an appeal could go back to the Committee—was the decision that was to be accepted.
When one is in the position that the country as a whole is suffering from acute inflation, which generally develops immediately after the cessation of a great war, it is understandable that that pattern should develop. What worries me, however, is what has developed more latterly. I do not have the knowledge to know whether what I am saying is correct, but it may well be that there are certain people who have given excellent service during that period who are still serving upon the same Committee, although it has now changed its name.
I suggest to the House and to the Economic Secretary, in particular, that it may well be possible that the approach and calibre of the men concerned to deal with the problem of need and necessity in certain places in the United Kingdom and relating it to an expansionist policy which is coupled with acute inflation may not be exactly the right pattern to develop when the country is in a quite different position, when inflation has been stopped, where the standard of living is far higher and yet at the same time there are certain parts within the United Kingdom where there is still suffering and pockets of unemployment.
Consequently we are left in this dilemma. We know that if certain cases arise—and I have had several cases of this description during the past few years —we can get quite an incredible position. We can get a position where one feels that one has put up a case, indeed a first-class case, and then come to the position that quite a small percentage of aid will enable that thing to develop and get through. I have seen such a case turned down. I had taken it to a Minister as a further approach. He could not influence the Committee. In the end, private enterprise was found and came in to help and made the enterprise a success.
I mention that one case to show that D.A.T.A.C. can be wrong, because


D.A.T.A.C. did not turn it down with the idea or view that the money could be made available elsewhere. Therefore, I suggest to the Economic Secretary that I trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, together with the President of the Board of Trade, will have a look at this again, and at the composition of the actual committee to see whether or not a slight pattern of change should come about now when the position and pattern of economic life in the United Kingdom is quite divorced from the economic position of the country in 1945, due to the skill and ability of Conservative Chancellors of the Exchequer.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: I am very grateful to have the opportunity to support the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne). I am sorry that the specific point he raised has been obscured a little in the debate, but it is a mixed blessing to get the Adjournment at 8.15, especially on a subject like this.
I intervene for the one reason only that the Leete case illustrates a point which I have made frequently in recent months in this House. It is that no real study has been made by anyone of the causes and solution of regional unemployment. For fifteen years we have had the D.A.T.A.C. procedure and in recent years, at any rate, it has, I believe, proved a clumsy and ineffective weapon because the position in the regions is worse now than it has been in twenty years, in spite of D.A.T.A.C. We are now going over to the B.O.T.A.C. procedure and, as far as I can see, the position will be a good deal worse.
The Government gave as one of their major election promises that if they were returned they would make the first Measure in the new Parliament a Bill to deal with regional unemployment, and we have this miserable, piddling Act which the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has described as a patchy Act. It is a spotted dog of an Act. The Government think they can cure regional unemployment as if it were a case of blots of ink and a blotting paper.
Fifteen years of D.A.T.A.C. have shown that this approach to regional unemployment is a fallacy. The development areas get a double kick in the

pants in that they not only suffer from regional unemployment but every two or three years the Government stick on a credit squeeze procedure because of inflation in the Midlands and the South East, and the development areas then get it doubly in the neck. The Government's approach and economic policy are fundamentally wrong.
North-East England depends on three or four major industries and two of them, coal mining and shipbuilding and ship-repairing, are contracting industries. The coalmining industry is contracting very rapidly and none of us expects the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry to get back to the immediate post-war level. We in the North East press for any industry on the horizon—the car industry, Cunard, and anything else that is going, but nobody has a clue about what is the best industry to bring into the North East, because no one has got down to the problem and studied it. No intelligent research is being done by the Government, or, as far as I know, by anybody, on this problem.
It is little wonder that cases like the Leete case come up and that D.A.T.A.C. slipped up. How can the new procedure under the Local Employment Act succeed? What criteria will B.O.T.A.C. use? The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Marshall) mentioned this point. We hear a great deal today about viable industry. How does B.O.T.A.C. decide what will be a viable industry in Bideford, Newcastle or Weirside or wherever it may be?
I know quite well from experience in the North East that existing industrialists in an area very often do not want expansion. Leading industrialists in the North of England opposed the coming there of the car industry. Trade unionists, on the other hand, look at a new project from the point of view of the number of men who will be employed in it, and I am sorry to say look no further than that. The Government have no clue at all.
The chief characteristic of an area like the North-East of England is its economic interdependence, the dependence of one industry in the area on another in the area. There is the question of purchases and sales within the


area and the effect that expanding industry A will have on industries B, C and D. That is the kind of thing which nobody investigates. I am quite sure that it was not investigated by D.A.T.A.C. and certainly it is not being investigated by B.O.T.A.C. The question of Government purchases has also not been investigated. I believe that a planned policy of Government purchases in regions would do a great deal, but that has never been tackled at all.
The word "viability" has been used in connection with the Leete company. What is meant by "viability"? What did D.A.T.A.C. mean by it? While this shilly-shallying approach to regional unemployment continues, the basic situation in regions of low employment and high unemployment is getting steadily worse. We hear about the migration of young people from the South West, but that is not peculiar to the South West. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) obtained figures for the North-East of England which showed that no fewer than 60,000 people were lost to that region in the last eight years. It makes nonsense of all the social work carried out in housing, the building of schools and so on since the war if there is to be migration of that kind from one area to another. As far as I can see, until the Government get down to the problem of regional unemployment, and tackle it more intelligently, this will continue.
The only reason why I have intervened is to make a plea for a more intelligent approach to the problem of regional unemployment. Otherwise, we shall continue to have the phenomenon of depressed areas throughout the country in the midst of an otherwise prosperous community. That is a reproach to Britain, and I hope that the Government will ensure that it does not continue much longer.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Harry Randall: The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) has done a considerable service to the House in introducing this Adjournment debate. I am not sure that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury would agree; but it has afforded hon. Members on this side of the House an opportunity to direct attention to a number of areas which are

getting very little assistance from the Local Employment Act.
I am interested to intervene because the Leete case is not an isolated one. There are a number in the country and I shall tell the House of a similar case in my own constituency of Gateshead. We were a development area. We have a Team Valley Trading Estate which made a considerable contribution to the solution of the unemployment problem between the wars and has developed considerably. One firm there started from nothing and developed to such an extent that it is going into the American market and earning dollars. The firm of Smith's Electric Vehicles was anxious to expand. It wanted 20,000 sq. ft. and asked for D.A.T.A.C. assistance. None was given.

Mr. Manuel: What an opportunity missed.

Mr. Randall: Yes, and this firm pays above trade union rates. It is an excellent employer and encourages young men to go into the business. On the other hand, since Christmas there have been twenty-four boys in Gateshead who have not yet found work. There would have been an opportunity for them, and yet no D.A.T.A.C. assistance could be given to that firm. Now we are not included in the Schedule.
Taking into consideration all vacancies, the situation in Gateshead is that there are ten men chasing one job. Yet we cannot be considered under the Local Employment Act and this firm cannot be considered for D.A.T.A.C. assistance. The percentage of unemployment among men in my constituency is 4·3, and it is getting close to 4·5. In the last twelve months there has been an additional expenditure of £50,000 on unemployment pay in Gateshead but no objective assistance has been given to enable men to be employed. The Scottish and the Northern regions have more boys unemployed than any other region of the United Kingdom, and in ours there are three boys chasing one job. Those boys have listened to stories told by their fathers of the old days in that part of the country. Their fathers told them that this would never happen again, but it has happened. Yet no assistance is given by the Treasury under the D.A.T.A.C. scheme.
The Leete case is not an isolated one. Dozens of them will be found throughout the country. This brings to light the wretchedness and hypocrisy of the Local Employment Act, and the sooner we get rid of it the better.

9.59 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): This has been a fascinating—

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Might I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will want half-an-hour to reply to the debate. Does he want to cut out some discussion on a subject of the highest importance?

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Bryan.]

Mr. Barber: I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to reply now.

Mr. MacMillan: As a matter of courtesy to me, will the hon. Gentleman answer my question about whether he needs to take half-an-hour to reply to the debate?

Mr. Barber: I want to answer in the main the points put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) about the case of which he gave me notice. I shall certainly speak at no great length, and if there is time when I have dealt with the points which my hon. Friend has put to me I shall be pleased to resume my seat before half-past ten and give the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) an opportunity to speak.

Mr. Short: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Economic Secretary proposes to answer only the first speaker in the debate, could he not stick to the normal procedure of Adjournment debates and take only the last quarter of an hour to reply and thus allow other hon. Friends of mine to speak?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, and I am sorry that it is presented as such.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Does the Economic Secretary propose to make a second speech replying to the further speeches which may be made?

Mr. Barber: I was about to say that to me this has been a fascinating and, to my hon. Friend also, I should imagine, a somewhat unexpected debate. Certainly, the speeches which we have heard from both sides of the House have ranged over a very wide area. I know that the hon. Members who have referred to specific cases, as in the case of J. Leete and Co., Ltd., will not expect me, as they have not given me notice of the cases—I realise that they could not have done so in the circumstances— to reply to them. As to the wider question, I will certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade to what has been said. I was particularly interested in this regard in what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Marshall).
I must say that I was extremely surprised, to put it mildly, at the intervention of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). He intervened for only a few moments in the debate and made one statement which was 100 per cent. wrong.

Mr. T. Fraser: It was not wrong.

Mr. Barber: Perhaps I may explain. What surprised me was that he seemed to say that, even if D.A.T.A.C. advised against making a grant or a loan, the Treasury had power, nevertheless, to make a grant or loan. I see the hon. Gentleman nodding his head in assent. What astonishes me is that this falls to be considered under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, which extends Section 4 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. The 1945 Act was in operation and applied to parts of Scotland at the time when the hon. Gentleman was a Minister, and I should have thought that he would have known the most important words of all in Section 4 (1):
The Treasury may, in accordance with the recommendations of an advisory committee appointed by them, agree with any person
and so on. In other words, the Treasury has power only to agree to a proposal if a recommendation to that effect is made by the Committee—

Mr. Fraser: What Committee?

Mr. Barber: D.A.T.A.C.—the Development Area Treasury Advisory Committee.

Mr. Fraser: This is where the hon. Gentleman has got the thing so much upside down. D.A.T.A.C. is something which has been invented, something which has been brought into popular use for convenience. Section 4 of the 1945 Act talks about the advice of "an advisory committee" appointed by the Treasury, and so does the 1958 Act. The Treasury can appoint half a dozen advisory committees if it likes in order to get the recommendations that it wants. Ministers of both parties have from time to time stood at the Dispatch Box and referred to the different economic con-conditions which existed at the time when they were deciding whether or not they could give grants at that time. These decisions have to be taken by the Minister of the day at the time, and I should have thought that the one Minister here tonight who should know that would be the Economic Secretary.

Mr. Barber: I would merely say that I took careful advice on this matter. I have also, as far as it is proper for me to do so, inquired into what happened in the time of the Labour Government. I can say unreservedly and without any qualification whatsoever to the hon. Gentleman, with great respect, that I have considered the matter on previous occasions and again this evening and I can assure him that unless the Committee which was set up under the Labour Government and re-established under the Conservative Government makes favourable recommendations there simply is no power to make a grant or loan.
Several hon. Members have touched upon the Local Employment Act. I realise that in the way things have developed tonight it was proper for them to do so, and it has been most interesting for me, but they will not expect me, as Economic Secretary, to reply to the points they have made, which are for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade who has taken over in this matter. As I have already undertaken to do, I will bring what has been said to his notice.
Before I come to deal with the case of the particular company to which my

hon. Friend the Member for Torrington has drawn the attention of the House, I must pay some tribute to his pertinacity. I am very much aware of his concern about the problems created in Bideford by the wide variation from season to season of the prospects of employment there. Indeed, he has left me in no doubt whatever about this on the various occasions on which he has raised it with me.
I realise also that with these problems in mind he pressed strongly in February that Bideford should be classified as a development district and so have the benefit of the incentives which the new Local Employment Act provides in attracting new industry. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was not able to agree to this.
I recognise that, because of this fact, greater importance was attached to the possibility of the then outstanding application by this company succeeding before the power of the Treasury to grant assistance lapsed with the coming into force of the new Act. My hon. Friend has been to see me at the Treasury about this company, and has spoken to me about it on a number of occasions. Certainly he could not have done more. I want to explain now exactly what happened to this application, and the extent to which the Treasury had power to grant assistance in cases of this kind.
The Act under which the application was made was the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958. As the House knows, this Act was repealed when the Local Employment Act came into force on 1st April. It is for this reason that in much of what I have to say I must use the past tense, because that 1958 Act is no longer operative.
It provided that in certain circumstances the Treasury might give assistance for purposes likely to reduce local unemployment. These circumstances have been explained to the House previously on a number of occasions. Moreover, in order to ensure that all those potentially eligible to benefit from the Act were fully aware of the circumstances in which assistance might be given, extensive publicity was given to the provisions of the Act in the pamphlet "Industry on the Move" to which my hon. Friend referred. It was widely distributed by the Board of Trade at the beginning of last year.
I do not want to take up the time of the House by rehearsing in detail the conditions on which assistance might be given, but it is necessary to recall certain basic facts in order to understand why the application by this company proved unsuccessful. In the first place, the Act was not mandatory. It is important to realise that the Treasury had no power to make loans or annual grants except on the recommendation of an Advisory Committee appointed by the Treasury for this purpose.
In the case of J. Leete and Co., the Advisory Committee did not make a favourable recommendation and it follows that the Treasury had no legal power to provide financial assistance. In each case that came before the Committee it was required, before recommending assistance, to be satisfied, among other things, that in spite of temporary inability to obtain capital elsewhere on reasonable terms, the undertaking concerned had good prospects of being ultimately successful.
Those conditions applied equally to recommendations in favour of the loans or annual grants. Each application was submitted to both detailed technical and financial investigations which were specifically designed to enable the Committee to decide before making its recommendation to the Treasury that the statutory requirements, about the ultimate viability in spite of temporary inability to obtain capital, were satisfied. The purpose of all this was to ensure that the expenditure of public money involved was in accordance with Parliament's intentions in passing the Act.
My hon. Friend referred to the time which was taken between the application made by the company and the date when the decision was notified to the company. The initial approach was made on 24th October last year and the Committee's decision against making a favourable recommendation was notified to the company on 9th March.
I have made inquiries about this and about other cases and I can assure my hon. Friend that this period for consideration does not compare unfavourably with the length of time taken in dealing with the other 526 firm and eligible applications which were handled by the Advisory Committee during the life of the Act.

Mr. Manuel: Shame.

Mr. Barber: The hon. Member says "shame" but, perhaps, because he has not had the advantage which I have had of making detailed inquiries about it, the hon. Member does not always appreciate the considerable amount of work which is involved in ensuring that an application is the sort of application which should be given favourable consideration.

Mr. Manuel: I appreciate that, but does not the hon. Gentleman think that the success which we expected and about which we are now being disillusioned was bound to be denied to us if we were to take five months to explore whether we could keep out a firm on evidence brought before us?

Mr. Ross: A small case like this with millions going to Blue Streak.

Mr. Barber: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) says "A small case like this", but small cases sometimes involve points which have to be considered with great care, just as much as cases involving greater sums. Anyhow, the important thing is to ensure that any outlay of public money is justified, and I do not think that the time taken was unreasonable. Certainly it did not prejudice the company's application.
As I have tried to make clear, in every case, one of the most important parts which accounts for a somewhat lengthy consideration is taken up by detailed technical and financial investigations. My hon. Friend said that the company had heard nothing from the end of December until March. In fact, in that period there were a number of telephone conversations following the letter of 31st December. It is important to note—I hope that the House will be fair about this in fairness to the Committee who tried to do a good job of work—that there were visits by technical and financial officers during that period.
As the House knows, the Advisory Committee was completely independent. I do not want to weary the House with the details of the men who constituted the Committee, but it was composed of men with great experience in finance, industry and commerce. I am satisfied that the Committee exercised its functions with complete impartiality and


without regard to the relative size of the individual undertakings.
Indeed, I am sorry that one hon. Member opposite made some play about the Conservatives always helping big industry and not small firms. I wish that he had been hare to hear me say that it was a feature of the working of the Act that, with few exceptions, the undertakings receiving assistance were the medium and smaller sized firms.
My hon. Friend referred in passing to the motor companies. I should like to touch on that again a little later in connection with a few words I want to say about the new Act as it affects the application.
The reference of applications to an independent Committee of this kind has obvious merits which were appreciated by the Labour Government in 1945 just as much as by ourselves. It has merits both from the point of view of those applying for assistance and for the Department which is the source of assistance.
From our experience of the part played by the Committee under the Act we were convinced that similar arrangements should be incorporated in the new Local Employment Act. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was very glad that the chairman and members of the Treasury Advisory Committee were able to accept his invitation to serve on the new Board of Trade Committee. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his part would, I know, pay his tribute to the ungrudging way in which the members of the Committee have made their services available. It is no light task for men who themselves are actively engaged in business, and they certainly have been extremely conscientious in the way they haev fulfilled their responsibilities under this Act, both during the Conservative Government since 1951, and from 1945 to 1951 when this Committee operated under a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Against this background of the reference of each application to the independent Advisory Committee and the need to meet certain statutory conditions, it will be seen that no individual applicant could be given an assurance at the outset of his application that assistance would be forthcoming. I want to make it clear that no such assurance

was given to J. Leete & Co. when it consulted the Board of Trade about the possibility of a move to Bideford. Indeed, no more could have been said at that stage than to explain the circumstances in which such assistance might be available to an undertaking prepared to move to a place of high unemployment, and to indicate which places were classed as such.
I think that these circumstances are also pretty clearly brought out in the pamphlet "Industry on the Move" to which my hon. Friend referred, and which, so far as I know, was made available to this company. The company has no grounds for claiming that in going ahead with its plans for the move to Bideford it was merely acting in anticipation of receiving assistance already promised to it. To suppose that would be to assume that the Advisory Committee was no more than a rubber stamp.
As my hon. Friend knows—and it has been mentioned by hon. Gentlemen also in more general connections—there was no obligation on the Advisory Committee to make known its grounds for refusing to recommend assistance in any particular case. It follows that I cannot state specifically the reason why the application of this company failed to obtain a favourable recommendation.
It may be that the Committee did not consider that it could recommend to the Treasury that the requirements of the Act were met. Or it may be that, even if the statutory requirements of the Act were met, the company was not able to obtain the Committee's recommendation of a grant, and it is important to what I have to say in a moment to realise that the application was for a grant and not for a loan.
I thought that my hon. Friend said that no doubt the company could borrow the money elsewhere. I do not want to take him too literally on that, but if it were the fact that the company could obtain money elsewhere, it would not have fulfilled one of the conditions which was, and always had been since 1945, that capital could not be raised on reasonable terms elsewhere. In view of the careful examination which was made by the Committee of the company's affairs, I would have thought that this would have been brought out. Consequently, I do not take that too literally.
The reasons why the Committee declined to give a favourable recommendation are matters of speculation. But, as explained, in "Industry on the Move" the normal form of assistance given by the Treasury was a loan, and annual grants were made only in rather special circumstances.
This morning I obtained some figures which are of significance in this regard, bearing in mind that this company asked for a grant. Of the amount of £9,102,595, which was the total of assistance offered under the 1958 Act, only £78,150 was in the form of annual grants. That is less than 1 per cent.
The fact that an undertaking was to be moved from one place to another of course did not automatically qualify it for annual grants. This point is very important in relation to this company. It was necessary to show that the expenses in respect of annual grants which were claimed were abnormal in the sense that they were the direct consequence of locating the undertaking in one particular place: that is to say, they were higher there than they would have been in setting up the undertaking elsewhere, and, moreover, they were such as to make the undertaking temporarily uneconomic. In the circumstances in which the move was undertaken by this company from Coventry to Bideford, I should doubt whether it could have made a case to the satisfaction of the Committee.
I have listened to what my hon. Friend had to say about the grievance which the company seemed to have that in its appeal against the decision of the Committee it was not given an opportunity of appealing personally in order to put its case. My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) made a similar point in relation to another case. I must say, quite frankly, that it has certainly not been the practice since 1958—I have had no reason to check the point, but I do not think it was before—for the Advisory Committee to hear representations from those applying for assistance. I can assure my hon. Friend, however, that where the Committee felt it would help to have a discussion with the applicant this was always arranged. It is important that that should be known. Certainly if the Committee felt that any fresh light could be thrown on the

application by discussion with a representative of the company, it would not have hesitated to suggest this.
In order to avoid any misunderstanding about the scope of the new Local Employment Act and the effect of its operation in relation to this company, I must emphasise again that in discussing this particular application I have been speaking about things past—what an hon. Member opposite called a little bit of history—and about an Act which was repealed when the Local Employment Act came into force. The fundamental reason for the introduction by the Government of new legislation superseding the Distribution of Industry Acts was to secure wider powers in the hope of finding a permanent solution to problems of local unemployment. The new Act gives the Board of Trade power to build factories in the development districts for renting by a company setting up an undertaking there.

Mr. Ross: That is not new.

Mr. Barber: It also gives the Board of Trade power to make capital grants towards the difference between the current market value and the actual cost to a company which chooses to build its own factory. In addition, it enables the Board of Trade on the recommendation of an Advisory Committee—in this case the Board of Trade Advisory Committee—to give assistance in the form of loans or grants to undertakings which fulfil the purposes of the Act.

Mr. Ross: This is not new.

Mr. Barber: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock keeps saying this is not new, but I must inform him that some of the provisions are new—

Mr. Ross: Only one.

Mr. Barber: —and conditions on which such assistance may be available are in some respects less stringent than they were under the 1958 Distribution of Industry Act, because it is not necessary for the company to show that it is unable for the time being to raise capital from commercial sources. It is under these powers that assistance may be made available in one form or another to some of the motor-car manufacturers to which my hon. Friend referred. They themselves have made public the fact


that they are seeking assistance in connection with the location of the next stage of their expansion in production in certain development districts. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade made clear the other day, there is at present no commitment on the part of the Board of Trade to give any assistance other than in strict accordance with the terms of the Local Employment Act, including, where necessary, a favourable recommendation by the Board of Trade Advisory Committee.
I have already explained that Bideford does not qualify as a development district under the new Act. The average percentage of unemployment in the early months of this year was in fact lower than that twelve months previously, when Bideford was added to the list of places for which assistance might be available under the 1958 Distribution of Industry Act.

Mr. P. Browne: May I make three points for the record? First, the unemployment percentage was exactly similar in January, 1959, as in January, 1960. Secondly, I did not say that the firm of J. Leete considered that the Board of Trade had given it a promise that it would get assistance, but that it had reason to believe that it probably would, because it was the sort of firm which would get assistance. Finally, on the question of appeal, I still cannot understand how any firm can appeal against the decision if it does not know upon what grounds the original application was refused.

Mr. Barber: Perhaps I may say to my hon. Friend that I have noted what he has said about the company, which I am sure the Board of Trade officials will also note. I am sure that I misunderstood what he said about the company. So far as unemployment is concerned, the figures I have here for the twelve months to January, 1959, show 4·3 per cent., and for the twelve months up to January, 1960, 3·4 per cent., and it is these periods which had to be considered in connection with the new Act.
However, there were certain other points which I wanted to make, particularly in connection with Bideford, but I have not got the time to do so. In regard to the points made by two of my

hon. Friends on whether or not the reasons for the decisions of the Committee should be disclosed, I mention only one factor which I know is relevant, although it is only one. It is that there have been occasions—I am not suggesting that this applies to this company; I do not believe it to be that sort of company—when it is undoubtedly the fact that the Committee took a pretty poor view of the management, and, obviously, if this were made known it might cause certain embarrassment. I can assure my hon. Friend that the application of this company received the fullest consideration. I hope that, however disappointed hon. Members are that it did not qualify for a Government grant, it will prosper, and perhaps in due course be able to undertake the further expansion at Bideford which it originally planned.
My hon. Friend asked me at the beginning of his speech if I could reconsider the case. I hope that at any rate I have satisfied the House that neither the Treasury nor the Committee has power to do that, because in fact the Act is no longer in force. Some of the considerations which my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite raised may well be relevant to the working of the new Act, and I therefore propose to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to What has taken place during this debate. I said at the outset of this debate, which so far as I and I think most of us are concerned, was somewhat unexpected in view of the fact that it has ranged considerably wider than the case which was raised by my hon. Friend—

Mr. Hayman: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me—

Mr. Barber: I am just finishing.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Simultaneous contradiction is insufferable.

Mr. Hayman: I wish to correct something I said earlier in speaking in the debate, when I made a slip about Falmouth. The passengers were to land at Falmouth, where facilities were provided, but on this occasion they could not land at Falmouth and had to go to Plymouth.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: It would be discourteous of me if I did not rise to


thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to get in, if only to say "Good night".

Mr. T. Fraser: It is absolutely disgraceful. I have sat here through the whole of this debate. The Minister knew that I had points I wished to make, and he has made sure that I was not able to make them.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: A most discourteous performance to the House.

Mr. Ross: Half an hour to say nothing.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.